On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:32:16AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:15:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > > >
...
> udev supports devfs naming schemes if
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 11, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That was not the information published by Marco in his packaging changelog
> > and in his blog. The bug is reported against the Debian package, I believed
> > Marco on his word t
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:15:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > >
> > > Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel
> > > 2.6.12
> > > (a point rele
On Jul 11, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was not the information published by Marco in his packaging changelog
> and in his blog. The bug is reported against the Debian package, I believed
> Marco on his word that this was an upstream change in udev, that udev 0.060
> would not ful
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> >
> > Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel 2.6.12
> > (a point release in the "stable" branch)
>
> There is no more "stable" or "development" k
On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Upgrading the kernel is a non-option for solving this. It is technically
It's the best option we have so far, but you choose to ignore it.
> Like it or not, udev in etch MUST be a valid, functional, drop-in, no-reboot
> upgrade from udev in sarg
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 01:02:11AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seams that if getting udev 0.6x quickly rewritten to support all
> > udev-based kernels in one version is too much work or too controversial, you
> > should do what modutils, c
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
>
> Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel 2.6.12
> (a point release in the "stable" branch)
There is no more "stable" or "development" kernel branches anymore,
haven't been for quite some time. So this st
On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seams that if getting udev 0.6x quickly rewritten to support all
> udev-based kernels in one version is too much work or too controversial, you
> should do what modutils, cdrecord and other packages usually do for *major*
> kernel upgrades (lik
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a >= 2.6.12 kernel
> thanks
>
> On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
> Not really.
>
> > Accord
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a >= 2.6.12 kernel
> thanks
> On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
> Not really.
> > According to
retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a >= 2.6.12 kernel
thanks
On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
Not really.
> According to the NEWS entry provided in the udev 0.060-1 package itself,
> this versio
Package: udev
Version: 0.060-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
According to the NEWS entry provided in the udev 0.060-1 package itself,
this version of udev is NOT COMPATIBLE with any kernel version prior to
2.6.12.
Kernel 2.6.12 has NOT Y
13 matches
Mail list logo
