Comment 17 for bug 11561

Message-Id: <1104602070.5479.29.camel@localhost>
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:54:30 +0100
From: Alban browaeys <email address hidden>
To: Marco d'Itri <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#288043: udev had to conflict with devfsd

>> On Dec 31, Daniel Jacobowitz <email address hidden> wrote:
>> I have devfs mounted on /dev. I didn't deliberately install udev, it
>> was pulled in by dependencies

Le samedi 01 janvier 2005 =E0 11:14 +0100, Marco d'Itri a =E9crit :
> On Jan 01, <email address hidden> wrote:
>=20
> > I though udev conflicts with devfsd ... isn't it a policy violation as
> > they both write the same files ?
> Which files? What are you talking about?

I respond to the first part of the bug report (the fact that udev
install was done even though devfs (mostly devfsd as we cannot conflict
with the kernel part) was there.

devfsd and udev both mount /dev (and create files inside). I am wrong
telling they overwrite their /dev ?
And i am pretty confident devfsd is there as jason told :
"It leaves my devfs moved to /.dev" and only devfsd populates the /dev
part . Mounting devfs is not enough for that.

this bug reports two independant problems : a missing conflict (devfsd
and udev) and a kernel bug (tmpfs). I may be wrong , this was merely to
point out that the first part is easier to fix .
 And the second may be only a normal bug if it appears only whith a
"broken" install : kernel missing tmpfs, or anything else .=20

Dunno for sure, though i m surprised by the which files conflicts ...

Ciao
Alban