Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:24:13 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org, phk@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ccd ccd.c src/sys/dev/vn vn.c src/sys/sys conf.h src/sys/i386/isa fd.c mcd.c scd.c wcd.c wd.c wt.c src/sys/i386/isa/matcd matcd.c src/sys/kern kern_conf.c src/sys/scsi cd.c od.c sd.c st.c Message-ID: <3577.838236253@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:29:01 %2B0200." <1252.838214941@critter.tfs.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> I sincerely belive it's time to get DEVFS kicked the next mile and get > rid of this problem once and for all. > > Too bad about the crowd screaming for "persistence" in DEVFS :-( Maybe implementing it would be part of the next mile. The best way to stop people screaming about something missing is to implement it, after all. :-) Also, the persistence people don't mind if devfs is *optional*, then it can throw your /dev files away every 5 minutes just for fun if it likes - they don't have to use it. If it's non-optional, then we've got major problems. We're already taking so much flak about "breaking UNIX in the name of progress" (damned if you do or don't sort of exercise) that there's just no way in heck I'd support a non-optional devfs without persistence. I get enough grief at conferences as it is. Jordanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3577.838236253>