> C. Scott Ananian writes:
> > I assume that this means that I can make a chroot jail using *only*
> > old-style dev entries (forgoing the new-fangled devfs) if I like?
> > If not, why not?
>
> Drivers not converted to support devfs will require ordinary device
> nodes. Those nodes may reside on a devfs just like on any other FS.
> Does that answer your question?
Why not support old-style device nodes as backwards-compatibility
barnacles *even for* drivers converted to use devfs? That way we have the
benefits of both the old (simple chroot jails) and new (more flexible
device naming, etc) systems? Why break stuff we don't have to?
--Scott
@ @
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=
C. Scott Ananian: cananian@lcs.mit.edu / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian