Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:20:30 -0500
From:      Kris Kennaway <>
To:        Freminlins <>
Cc:, Kris Kennaway <>
Subject:   Re: mknod, devfs and FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:25PM +0000, Freminlins wrote:
> Kris,
> On 28/01/07, Kris Kennaway <> 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?"

Yes it was.  The benefits of dynamic devices were considered to
outweight the downsides of having to mount a devfs instance.

> 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=
> /dev than to mount a devfs. Also, it means I have to migrate my existing =
> up which works perfectly as it is.

Actually I disagree.  Once you write the simple devfs ruleset it is a
single command to instantiate a new /dev.  You don't have to worry
about making each individual device node N times and possibly making a
mistake.  Of course you probably have a script to do this now, but
that just means you need to adjust your script as part of your
migration strategy.

> It isn't just cosmetic, it really is more awkward than running mknod. I t=
> your point that there's no technical reason not to do this, but it isn't
> pretty.

To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get
over :-)

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>