From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 19 14:54:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from proxy2.ba.best.com (proxy2.ba.best.com [206.184.139.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F085514D0F for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:54:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com ([209.157.86.2]) by proxy2.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.out) with ESMTP id OAA22559; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA75273; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:52:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:52:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199909192152.OAA75273@apollo.backplane.com> To: Chuck Robey Cc: Julian Elischer , Wayne Cuddy , FreeBSD Hackers List Subject: Re: what is devfs? References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: : :> DEVFS itself works fine however a subsystem it required to be a useful :> abstraction was vandalised and stripped out by some people who "didn't get :> it" and it has not yet been replaced by equivalent code. : :It seems more correct (to me) to state that there was a furious :disagreement over whether or not to allow some memory of file permissions :in devfs. Since there was never any agreement, DEVFS has smoldered. I :think there's general agreement it would be a good thing to have, but that :argument over how to keep user configurations must be handled. : :Saying it was dumped by people who "didn't get it" isn't quite correct, :just people who didn't agree with your viewpoint on permissions. It :wasn't only your viewpoint, I know there were many other highly qualified :folks who agreed with you, but there wasn't much spirit of compromise :evinced. : : :---------------------------------------------------------------------------- :Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics, :213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing. Well, I tried using it months ago but it crashed the machine a lot :-) Those bugs are supposedly fixed now, right? Can I go back to using it? It seems to me that we have to be able to change ownership/modes for DEVFS devices to deal with tty's and pty's properly. Are people arguing over that or are people arguing over whether the changes should be persistent or not? Personally I don't care if they aren't persistent, it's a simple matter to set things up in rc.local. I really want to be able to use DEVFS for my diskless startup code. Right now I have to wave my hands and do some magic to make /dev work right for diskless BOOTP startups. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message