Kernel page, once again

James Robertson jwrober at
Wed Jun 16 09:20:45 PDT 2004

Jeremy Utley wrote:
> Jeroen Coumans wrote:
>> Roel Neefs said the following on 16-06-2004 06:22:
>>> I think the community has seen enough now of these mails Jeroen, udev
>>> works, the majority of the community wants udev in, Matt made a
>>> decision, please try to respect those. There's no pointing in bringing
>>> the subject up every couple days.
>> I didn't bring up the subject, and I was very careful to not suggest 
>> the removal of udev/hotplug. However, I can't help it if my previous 
>> views are deemed correct by others; especially not if a knowledgable 
>> editor about the subject states it that way.
>> PS don't try to attribute your opinion to the community; there have 
>> been positive reactions to my mails too. The discussion so far has 
>> been very constructive, working towards a solution within the given 
>> paramaters. Let's try to keep it that way.
> The problem I see is, instead of constructive suggestions as to how to 
> fix the problem, you are wanting to just take them out.  If we did that 
> every time we have problems, we'd have never gotten past LFS 4.0 and the 
> NSS libs issues.  A lot of the confusion with the recent questions is 
> because the OP was posting to the incorrect list for his question 
> (BLFS-Support instead of LFS-Hackers), and many people didn't realize 
> that the OP was on a udev-driven system, and therefore were giving 
> suggestions that would NOT work in that enviornment.  I think the 
> community needs to come together and try to work these issues out, not 
> go running away from bringing the book forward to where it should be.
> -J-

I am not for removing, I am only for a single path written in the book 
with alternatives provides on a *at your own risk* deal. I have little 
experience with modular kernels and have no experience with 
2.6/udev/hotplug, but what I hear is intriguing.  I think it is the way 
to move towards.  Linux on the desktop has a ways to go and these things 
are moving it in a good direction.  I think the book should put these 
things in.  Keep them in unstable for a little so that we all can get 
the kinks worked out.  Alexander P has identified some issues that we 
need to remember (put in the book?).  One of the reasons why I have not 
used modular kernels was a learning curve.  I just couldn't seem to get 
it going the way I thought it should.  No biggie, monolithic kernels are 
good for me.  I do, though, want to learn this new way and I think the 
absolutely best place to learn it is right here in our book.  I think we 
are all saying the same thing more or less.  This is what unstable is 
for.  Put it in there, let is gel for a bit and test it out.  If we 
don't like it, pull it.  If it works great, then move it to testing when 
the time comes.  I see this as an excellent way to "see what works".


James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 --
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   --
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list