I think this package can be removed now.

a/devs-2.3.1-noarch-25

kernel/udev handles creating /dev entries

It doesn't hurt to have a fallback in case something happens to eudev.

13 members found this post helpful.

Something happening to eudev in what way?

I think this package should be removed only at runlevel 1. It looks like the removal will actually remove dev nodes that might be in use depending on the system. Which could be undesirable.

What? You don't remove packages at certain runlevels. If it is a package that has binary executables (this one doesn't), you can specify when/if something will start at a certain runlevel using startup scripts, but you can't remove/add packages at certain runlevels.

Are you willing to walk the walk or do you just talk the talk? If you stand behind what you say then run this in a shell on your desktop.

removepkg devs

Report back soon.

Feel free to do some experiments on your system and report back here, but don't expect it to happen in current without strong argument why it should be removed.

Old packages are being kept since they are still working fine and no need to rebuilt. If other distro decided to remove it from their repository, it's their decision and not Slackware's.

2 members found this post helpful.

Not all systems require eudev to load devices. Many systems like servers utilize static device nodes for reliability reasons because hardware never changes and loading and unloading dynamic devices isn't needed. Eudev has progressed greatly, but the rule sets can still be troublesome on various systems. Devs provides a fallback of standardized devices that can exist, and may exist on any system.

Just to show some validity, even LFS has you create several static device nodes when you build the system to lock in several key nodes to the device tree for uniformity and fail safes.

Also, the system can still be booted with older kernels which may not have device creation enabled or available.
What does 'on your desktop' have top do with runlevel 1?

Ok, I now see what you mean (first time around didn't make any sense). But that would mean you'd also need to install a package when you reboot or shutdown the system, otherwise it wouldn't be there during boot up. How is this any better than just keeping the program installed? Where's the benefit behind this?

To Pat's point an I think a more realistic situation than what others have suggested would be for example if eudev failed to execute because of a configuration problem, or because someone accidentally removed it, etc. If you have a basic set of static devs the machine will most likely still boot at least to run level 1 and probably to level 3 on non-exotic systems.

That is desirable because it makes it easy to fix things, well easier than having to boot of alternative media and fix things that way.

The devs package takes up almost no space and isn't likely to cause any conflicts or problems. Removing it gives you a less robust system and gains you nothing.

3 members found this post helpful.