On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:31:14PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 25, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All those popular mips WLAN devices use still 2.4 kernels, some people
> > started to port some of them to 2.6, but the main hindrance are binary
> > only (and thus 2.4 only) dri
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 03:55:03PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Aug 25, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> < waldi> there is no package to do the configuration
> > This looks like something which can be easily fixed before the release
On Aug 25, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All those popular mips WLAN devices use still 2.4 kernels, some people
> started to port some of them to 2.6, but the main hindrance are binary
> only (and thus 2.4 only) drivers.
It's not like they are already supported by debian anyway, then.
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 25, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are some architectures where 2.4 is required, its
> > because of these that it seems that we are stuck with 2.4 for Etch.
> > alpha (installer), m68k (2.6 only works on amiga), s390 (installer),
> > mips, mipsel
> Wh
On Aug 25, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> < waldi> there is no package to do the configuration
This looks like something which can be easily fixed before the release.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:14:53PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.24.2204 +0200]:
> > So IMHO udev is more generic than hotplug.
>
> This is Unix, not monolithic-land.
>
> Also, udev was set out to do nothing other than device node
> manageme
On Thursday 25 August 2005 10:45, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 25, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are some architectures where 2.4 is required, its
> > because of these that it seems that we are stuck with 2.4 for Etch.
> > alpha (installer), m68k (2.6 only works on amiga), s390
> > (
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:43:14AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:39:13PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > > There are some architectures where 2.4 has been abandonded uptream,
> > > and these are being removed from the arcive
> > > powerpc (ok, thats one, not some)
>
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:16:02PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> AFAIK the idea is to deprecate everything under /proc which is not
> strictly process-related information, but that transition will take many
> years (if ever completed, which I somewhat doubt).
It would probably have been easier to r
On Aug 25, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So can we configure udev to stop managing /dev? This would remove my qualms
Yes, as explained in README.Debian.
It's not well tested, but it should work (at least in unstable).
And another option is to make it use a different dev_root that
On Aug 25, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are some architectures where 2.4 is required, its
> because of these that it seems that we are stuck with 2.4 for Etch.
> alpha (installer), m68k (2.6 only works on amiga), s390 (installer),
> mips, mipsel
What does "installer" mean? IIRC SuS
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:39:13PM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> > There are some architectures where 2.4 has been abandonded uptream,
> > and these are being removed from the arcive
> > powerpc (ok, thats one, not some)
> hppa is as well. It is still useful to have the 2.4 kernel-images in the
Horms writes...
> There are some architectures where 2.4 has been abandonded uptream,
> and these are being removed from the arcive
> powerpc (ok, thats one, not some)
hppa is as well. It is still useful to have the 2.4 kernel-images in the
archive since they are still more stable on some ma
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:59:01PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:01:10AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 24, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now.
> > > Yeah. Horrible. Will udev become a
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I have a different view: udev is a program to receive kernel
> events and evaluate/execute different rules based on the event, and it
> comes with a default ruleset to manage /dev nodes.
So can we configure udev to stop managing /dev? This would rem
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:01:10AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 24, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now.
> > Yeah. Horrible. Will udev become an editor and MTA too, maybe after
> > etch?
> No. But since it had to deal
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> When I asked the udev maintainer about this, he replied that he does not
> believe that it will be an issue in the future.
> We are not even at the step of requiring udev for everything, only for
> less than ten packages which require
On Aug 24, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now.
> Yeah. Horrible. Will udev become an editor and MTA too, maybe after
> etch?
No. But since it had to deal with most events, applying the same process
to the others was a natural
On Aug 24, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two points:
>
> - I am tired of having to revamp the hotplugging framework every
> other month;
Not a great point. There has been exactly one other change in the
hotplug API in the past, and it started long ago with a very long
transition per
also sprach Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.24.2204 +0200]:
> So IMHO udev is more generic than hotplug.
This is Unix, not monolithic-land.
Also, udev was set out to do nothing other than device node
management.
> > The other comment is that udev is not generally accepted. A lot
> > of
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:23:37PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> To be honest, I installed a laptop the other day, and udev works well
> on it (sarge with a 2.6.12 kernel); but I probably won't be able to
> upgrade the kernel without running into problems with udev, which is a
> total pain.
I onl
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 05:36:43PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I have two comments: udev is a device node manager, not a hook
> system for generic actions to be taking when a device is plugged or
> unplugged. RUN rules kinda make this possible, but udev is on the
> right track of doing the wro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
[/etc/hotplug.d being deprecated in favour of udev RUN rules]
> I'd like to know your opinion about speeding up the transition and
> removing right now support for hotplug.d/ in your packages, making them
> depend on udev.
Two points:
- I am tired of hav
also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.24.1752 +0200]:
> > I have two comments: udev is a device node manager, not a hook
> > system for generic actions to be taking when a device is plugged
> > or
> udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now.
Yeah. Horrible. Will
On Aug 24, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have two comments: udev is a device node manager, not a hook
> system for generic actions to be taking when a device is plugged or
udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now.
> The other comment is that udev is not genera
also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.08.24.1727 +0200]:
> I'd like to know your opinion about speeding up the transition and
> removing right now support for hotplug.d/ in your packages, making
> them depend on udev.
I have two comments: udev is a device node manager, not a hook
syst
Currently only a very small number of packages using the deprecated
/etc/hotplug.d/ interface is left.
Keeping hotplug.d/ support is both a waste of resources on every system
(multiple programs needs to be run for every event, even if they are not
needed) and makes the transition from hotplug to so
27 matches
Mail list logo
