Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:07:25 +0000 From: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mknod, devfs and FreeBSD Message-ID: <eeef1a4c0701290507n1aa08ebby380cc688f23ed09e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070128184925.GB61662@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <eeef1a4c0701260840pef414f9h3e76fce789c06386@mail.gmail.com> <20070126174826.GA13730@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701261505g7258ae9cx7bcb70a825fb8c88@mail.gmail.com> <20070126234756.GA19420@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701280756m3014f3acu15398d43e7a309e2@mail.gmail.com> <20070128184925.GB61662@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris, On 28/01/07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > > > I not understand this no sentence :) Sorry, I didn't read what I typed. I meant to type "Was the effect of this considered at all?" What reasons, other than cosmetic, do you have for not wanting to do > this? Well, I am sure you would agree it is simpler to mknod for a small subset of /dev than to mount a devfs. Also, it means I have to migrate my existing set up which works perfectly as it is. It isn't just cosmetic, it really is more awkward than running mknod. I take your point that there's no technical reason not to do this, but it isn't pretty. Kris Frem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c0701290507n1aa08ebby380cc688f23ed09e>