[clug] sound device weirdness

[freegazer]

can anyone forsee an issue removing devfs from an already running
system that installed with both devfs & udev??


On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:32:06 +1100, Francis Whittle <fudje at phreaker.net> wrote:
> I've found that udev tends to work better with hotplugging and that kind
> of thing.  Which... seems weird, but anyway.
> I check 'N' for devfs support these days.  Pointless (Plus, udev is
> easier to configure than devfsd :)
> 
> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 09:03 +1100, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:58:34AM +1100, Bob Edwards wrote:
> > >
> > > Is devfs fully supported in 2.6 kernels? I thought someone told me
> > > recently that it was being deprecated (in favour of udev or something).
> > > I guess I should look into this a bit more myself :-)
> > >
> >
> > It's deprecated, and I read on debian-devel recently that it is slated for
> > removal in 2.6.11. udev works (mostly) fine as well. From a users
> > perspective, I never had a problem with (and quite liked) devfs, but
> > apparently it was implemented really badly under the bonnet. I'm personally
> > using udev on my laptop without any major issues. My main problem (and it's
> > really with both devfs and udev) is I haven't got my head around the myriad
> > of config files involved, so if I want to modify the permissions on a device
> > in a persistent manner, I have to do some more reading...
> >
> > --
> > linux.conf.au 2005   -  http://linux.conf.au/  -  Birthplace of Tux
> > April 18th to 23rd   -  http://linux.conf.au/  -       LINUX
> > Canberra, Australia  -  http://linux.conf.au/  -    Get bitten!
> 
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
> 


-- 
<signature block>
Rule #35
That which does not kill you has made a tactical error.
</signature>