On 2013-03-31, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote: >> On 2013-03-31, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Pandu Poluan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway" >>>> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits the >>>> same behavior... >>>> >>> I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert. Last eudev update >>> was in Feb. so I *guess* not. It seems to be a "udev" thing. That is >>> why I mentioned eudev to someone else that was having this issue with a >>> server setup. >> I'd guess eudev will eventually do the same, although I hope that, it >> being a separate codebase, makes it easier to adopt some solution like >> the old rule generator, instead of using udev's approach. >> >> The udev upstream may have its issues, but there's actually a point in >> removing this, the approach there was so far was just a dirty hack. >> > > > Thing is, it works for me. The old udev worked, eudev works but I'm not > sure what hoops I would have to go through to get the new udev working, > most likely the same ones others here are going through now. For once, > I'm not having to deal with some broken issue. < knock on wood > > > My current uptime is about 190 days. May hit it still but I'm certainly > hoping I don't.
And, at least now, I have got enough knowledge to know whether it affects me or not. But the sad thing is that I got most of that knowledge *after* the first of these versions without the old script was stabilized. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
