On 2013-08-05 4:18 PM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).
Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to
regular udev?
I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher
udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been
updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this
happened regularly.
Agreed... Anthony, can you comment on the likelihood of this happening
in the future? An occasional temporary issue wouldn't trouble me, as I
already wait at least a few days before updating anything critical, and
it isn't like this kind of thing hasn't happened for regular udev...
Thanks for the reply Neil...
