Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751079AbWATQlP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:41:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751078AbWATQlP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:41:15 -0500 Received: from linux01.gwdg.de ([134.76.13.21]:59111 "EHLO linux01.gwdg.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751079AbWATQlO (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:41:14 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:41:13 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Michael Loftis cc: Marc Koschewski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060120155919.GA5873@stiffy.osknowledge.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 851 Lines: 20 > Lots of things still out there depend on devfs. So now if I want to develop my > kmod on recent kernels I have to be in the business of maintaining a lot more > userland stuff, like mkinitrd, installers, etc. that have come to rely on > devfs. Just like the OSS-ALSA/e100 debate: If there IS something that you do not like [something that requires devfs], why has NO ONE objected? (Quoting Greg: "and I have not heard a single peep out of anyone about the email titled "Subject: devfs going away, last chance to complain"") Not to forget there is ndevfs if you really need it. Jan Engelhardt -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/