On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 00:51:14 +0100 (+0100), Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 23, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would you mind explaining what I have done to break the configuration? > Probably you installed an old version of udev, removed it without > purging it and then you installed a newer version of udev which > preserved your existing configuration.
Looking through the aptitude logs that looks plausible: aptitude.2.gz:[INSTALL, DEPENDENCIES] udev aptitude.2.gz:[REMOVE, NOT USED] udev aptitude.2.gz:[INSTALL] udev aptitude.2.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.070-5 -> 0.071-1 aptitude.1.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.071-1 -> 0.072-2 aptitude.1.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.072-2 -> 0.074-2 aptitude.1.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.074-2 -> 0.074-3 aptitude.1.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.074-3 -> 0.076-3 aptitude.1.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.076-3 -> 0.076-4 aptitude.1.gz:[UPGRADE] udev 0.076-4 -> 0.076-6 However aptitude did this by the looks of things (I don't remember manually removing it since I almost always purge if I get rid of packages). However I don't understand how that alters anything - surely it should cope with any reasonable prior state. One such as this seems very reasonable. > > If hotplug.rules should be being included then something has > > gone wrong during the install. In fact - in this case there is a > > cd-aliases.rules file which already exists so it has skipped the other > > symlinks. > Yes, by design. I'm not trying to be difficult or awkward here, I just can't see the justication why the bug should be closed - or more accurately, why you seem so confident that this is something that I have done wrong rather than something that others may be bitten by. In fact, a friend says he had to drop back to 0.6x - I've not heard confirmation that it was the same problem but I can try and obtain that if it would be helpful. We've both been using linux for 10 years so it's not as if we are clueless newbies. > > One other item that I spotted but forgot to mention is that he > > /etc/init.d/udev script only seems to set /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug for > > kernels upto 2.6.14 (not 2.6.15+). However this doesn't appear to > > have broken anything AFAICT. > Maybe because this is not a bug. Great to hear - I only mentioned it in case it was! Thanks, Adrian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
