Re: With udev, are dev and MAKEDEV still required?

[Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin redhat com>]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 06:40:22AM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:57:55AM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> > A problem with MAKEDEV is, that it places the MAKEDEV *binary* into
> > /dev. This is a really bad place for it; devfs under 2.4 removed it and
> > buildsystems which need a special /dev will remove it also.
> 
> Unix tradition is the essential reason for this. Nothing more.

The wording in FHS [1] seems a bit vague about this case.  Opinions?

Nalin

[1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SPECIFICOPTIONS4