delgarde at ihug.co.nz
Thu Feb 4 02:49:15 PST 2010
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:49 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> I was disappointed when I saw that LFS seemingly ineluctably
> was wedded to udev. I see that BLFS has some hints for doing
> things without it, but then leaves the sysadmin to his own
> devices (no pun intended) thereafter, with a one sentence
> mention of mknod.
Well, there's certainly nothing stopping you from building LFS without
udev - if you're knowledgeable enough to create the necessary device
nodes by some other mechanism. But there's no sense in taking that
approach in the core LFS itself - udev is a fundamental piece of every
modern distribution, and increasingly, a hard requirement for desktop
Emphasizing that last point - the desktop projects are coming to regard
udev as *the* hardware management service on Linux, supplying
information and notifications about available hardware. If you want a
service like Network Manager to handle WiFi / 3G / VPN connectivity, you
*must* use udev. If you want to plug in in a flash drive and have Gnome
open up a file manager window, you *must* use udev. If you want Xorg to
automatically deal with whatever hardware you have without needing a
config file - well, pretty soon, you'll need to use udev.
Now, these things might not bother you too much - your system, your
rules, after all. But it should make it clear why LFS is wedded to udev
- because for most purposes, it's just not optional anymore.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the blfs-support