From owner-freebsd-current Sun Mar 11 12:58:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D2437B718 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from zeppo.feral.com (IDENT:mjacob@zeppo [192.67.166.71]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA31524; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:58:04 -0800 Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:58:01 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Alfred Perlstein , Poul-Henning Kamp , "Niels Chr. Bank-Pedersen" , current@FreeBSD.ORG, Greg Lehey Subject: Re: how's vinum these days with DEVFS (second part) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I think I'm assuming that DEVFS will become standard. I really see it working very very well and solving lots of problems. I have yet to really find cases where it really *can't* work (modulo broken drivers). > > > Matthew Jacob writes: > > > Hmm. Sounds to me more like an argument for requiring devfs if you > > > use vinum. > > > > Not until vinum works equally well with devfs as without it. > > Har har har har har............ > > Almost a Catch-22... "We have to do really wierd things so vinum will work > equally well without devfs as with it... so we can, then,.... remove all the > wierd things we did to make vinum work equally well without devfs as with > it"... > > I think what you really meant to say was "No, we won't require devfs". > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message