Re: '/proc/partitions' does not match '/dev'

From: Andreas Janssen (andreas.janssen_at_bigfoot.com)
Date: 12/19/03

  • Next message: Bijan Soleymani: "Re: QuickTime for Linux?"
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
    Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:57:25 +0100
    
    

    Hello

    Richard Lyons (<richard@the-place.net>) wrote:

    > On Friday 19 December 2003 13:51, Andreas Janssen wrote:
    > [...]
    >> The reason for this can be that you have devfs enabled in your
    >> kernel, but are not using it.
    >
    > That makes sense. I noticed a rant about the need for devfs in
    > CD-Writing-HOWTO-2.html at linux.org. Perhaps I should be using it,
    > then. Is it generally a good idea and what do I have to do to
    > convert?

    I don't use it. You need additional software (the devfsd), you need to
    take care that symlinks are created to make the new system compatible
    with programs that want to use the old device entries (this seems to be
    reasonably preconfigured) and so on. Personally I don't know what
    advantage the devfs would give me compared to the normal dev directory.
    It may be useful if you want to have / read-only, and you have less
    device files in /dev, but that's all I can see.

    best regards
            Andreas Janssen

    -- 
    Andreas Janssen
    andreas.janssen@bigfoot.com
    PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674
    Registered Linux User #267976
    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    

  • Next message: Bijan Soleymani: "Re: QuickTime for Linux?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Remove devfs from 2.6.13
      ... way to the kernel archives. ... >> new features since long before devfs went into the kernel. ... > first version of udev, a binary about 5k in size, pretty much ... > ndevfs does not support subdirectories. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
      ... As far as fixing there are modules that have been developped to run various embedded peripherals that must be reworked to use the newer kernel versions, which wouldn't be a problem if there weren't various other fixes that were needed which means moving up point revs. ... I'm guessing that maybe it's fixed somewhere in between 2.6.8 and 15 but until I find and backport fixes to something with devfs I won't be able to find out. ... I think I have more kernel bugs and can go on, but I'll just be told 'upgrade to 2.6.15' which is not an option in many cases if these are indeed development releases, if only 'politically', but there are often real costs involved. ... abandon Linux altogether. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
      ... The problem is that there's no more stable kernel first, and secondly that there's not much if any pointers abotu the change. ... I could hardly give a rats ass about devfs. ... It's the whole new development model that's the problem, and will only get worse for the types of companies who I work with who normally right now support Linux development. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV
      ... >> has been marked OBSOLETE in 2.6 kernel. ... > just the presence of udev. ... Devfs is also buggy, ... >> kernel and configure the programs to use DEVFS ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user
      ... To the kernel, it's basically the ... Because then you have devfs, which is not what we are trying to do here. ... > one kernel-generated filesystem and put everything in there. ... to do with udev though.... ...
      (Linux-Kernel)