With udev, are dev and MAKEDEV still required?
dragoran
dragoran at feuerpokemon.de
Wed Aug 25 13:36:43 UTC 2004
David T Hollis schrieb:
>On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 23:07 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:15:34 -0400, David T Hollis
>><dhollis at davehollis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>With udev now handling /dev and repopulating upon reboot, it seems that
>>>the dev and MAKEDEV packages are no longer relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=130746
>>
>>I'm not sure its safe to say the static dev packages are completely
>>irrelevant now.
>>
>>
>>
>
>In looking into the dev requirement for which (which struck me as quite
>odd), I found this bug report:
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99275 . The which
>package needs dev so that the postinstall scripts calling install-info
>can use "> /dev/null". There were ordering problems with 'which' being
>installed before 'dev' since 'which' doesn't have much in the way of
>requirements. I suppose it may be better to have a requirement
>on /dev/null, though currently only 'dev' provides it. If there is a
>future without 'dev' (optional or mandatory), that sort of scenario will
>need to be addressed.
>
>
>
>
does /dev/null exists when using udev?
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list