> At 10:56 AM -0500 6/26/01, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >Toralf Lund wrote:
> > > So what you are saying is that this has been changed since 1.0? I seem t
> > > remember that this wouldn't boot at all when I first installed it, and t
> > > installing devfs via "rescue mode" resolved the problems.
> >For XFS 1.0 / RH 7.1, we released our own version of devfsd, which was
> >essentially Mandrake's patched devfsd, with some config file magic to
> >try to handle /dev/mouse and /dev/cdrom transparently.
> >In any case, mounting devfs on /dev will not be the default in 1.0.1.
> I personally have had problems keeping /dev/cdrom working but
> have been under the impression that devfs was needed for most of the
> SGI tools to work. Will all the other [non XFS] OSS SGI stuff work
> regardless? I also heard a rumor that devfs was used to work around
> some problems booting from an XFS partition (much like one can't boot
> from ReiserFS).
What things are you thinking of? There is nothing that I am aware of
which depends on it, there are internal projects here which will
require it, but nothing we have released.
XFS has no dependency on devfs at all, I run without it all the time
on XFS only machines. devfs and XFS are totally independent of each
> It all boils down to one question. Is devfs a good thing to
> use or not?
In theory devfs is a good thing, but a lot of Linux user space is not
ready for it. We will be packaging the 1.0.1 version of xfs with
it turned off - currently debating if it should even be compiled into
the kernel as Redhat has pointed out some problems with devfs to us.
I would say you can live without it quite nicely, but if you want to do
funky things with device handling and want to be able to read the output
of ls in /dev then try turning it on.
> . . . . . . . . ooo . . . . ooo . . . . . . . . .
> . .
> . Dean Brissinger - Systems Administrator .
> . Direct: 303-583-0278 Main: 303-444-0094 .
> . Fax: 303-583-0246 http://www.vexcel.com/ .
> . .
> . . . . . . . oOOo . . A . . oOOo . . . . . . . .
> 0 0