Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote:
> 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.
>


I switched to eudev when the separate /usr thing popped up.  While I am
watching this thread and sort of taking mental notes, I'm hoping this is
not a eudev thing, even in the future. 

I'm just hoping people will be able to find a solution to this that
works well for them.  I especially wish that for those managing a remote
system with little or no physical access. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how 
you interpreted my words!


Reply via email to