With udev, are dev and MAKEDEV still required?

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 12:19:47PM -0400, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
> 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?

Looks ok to me. It belongs there unless it isnt needed. Since udev doesn't
create every possible device in every configuration I see no harm putting
it there.