devfs and bootscripts...

J.A. Neitzel jan.listbox at
Tue Oct 2 19:37:39 PDT 2001

Jonathan Kelly wrote:
> On 2001.10.01 14:10 Ian Molton wrote:
>> On stardate Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:13:42 +1000
>> Jonathan began the full scale invasion of earth with the following words:
>> > On 2001.10.01 08:48 Ian Molton wrote:
>> > > hi there...
>> > > 
>> > > is there any reason I shouldnt do this?
>> > > 
>> > > when I boot my system (which is setup to boot with devfs on startup),
> <snip>
>> My point is, you dont - I'm not using devfsd.
> Hmm ... now I'm confused ... why enable devfs in the kernel if you're not
> going to use it?
> My proposition is, "if you're not running devfsd, you're not using devfs".

I think there may have been a miscommunication here.
devfs and devfsd are different things entirely. What is the
difference? devfsd is merely a helper to devfs. Depending on
the person's point of view devfsd is required or optional.

Some people, as I understand their point of view, think that
devfsd gets in the way and pollutes the idea of what devfs is
supposed to be??? I can't speak for others though. But, if this
is correct (my previous statement), I would tend to agree that
devfsd kind of gets in the way...

Anyway, devfsd is entirely optional and *not* required.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-support mailing list