I demand that Adrian von Bidder may or may not have written...
[snip]
> stable Ethernet interface names suddenly becoming unstable in out of the
> box upgrades is not funny either. Yes, there are solutions, but at least
> one of these needs to be installed in a default installation of Debian.
>
I demand that Marco d'Itri may or may not have written...
> On Dec 29, Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I remember [%e etc.] being reliable. Sacrificing their reliability at the
>> altar of boot speed (AIUI) wasn't really a good idea...
> No reliability will be sacrified, [...]
That'd b
On Dec 29, Darren Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember them being reliable. Sacrificing their reliability at the altar of
> boot speed (AIUI) wasn't really a good idea...
No reliability will be sacrified, but some things will have to be
implemented differently.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:48:56AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> "Network interfaces may be renamed after sarge to etch upgrades" is
> acceptable. "Network interfaces may completely lose any stable naming and
> may be randomly named after every reboot after sarge to etch upgrades
> unless y
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 12:02:44AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> > Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
> > /dev/hdX -> /media/cdrom ?
>
> Hmm, that's what it does, so maybe things will be ok. I don't know
> really what else might depend on th
On Friday 30 December 2005 01.19, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:55:03PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> > > Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
> > > /dev/hdX -> /media/cdrom ?
Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
> /dev/hdX -> /media/cdrom ?
Hmm, that's what it does, so maybe things will be ok. I don't know
really what else might depend on there being a /dev/cdrom.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Di
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:55:03PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
>
> > Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
> > /dev/hdX -> /media/cdrom ?
>
> Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /d
I demand that Marco d'Itri may or may not have written...
> On Dec 29, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
>> necessarily be stable anymore.
> No: the /dev/[sh]d* devices are as stable as they have always been.
Whi
On Dec 29, Adrian von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
> necessarily be stable anymore.
No: the /dev/[sh]d* devices are as stable as they have always been.
ONLY rules using %e (the /dev/cdrom-like aliases) are unreliable.
>
On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
> Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
> /dev/hdX -> /media/cdrom ?
Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
necessarily be stable anymore.
(and, once more, and much worse:
Joey Hess wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
>>Good point. So it looks like that this will have to be managed by an
>>installed package.
>>I do not expect to be pratical to do this e.g. at boot time, so we need
>>a script to be run by a catch-all rule for devices without an alias.
>>
>>BTW, does d-i a
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Good point. So it looks like that this will have to be managed by an
> installed package.
> I do not expect to be pratical to do this e.g. at boot time, so we need
> a script to be run by a catch-all rule for devices without an alias.
>
> BTW, does d-i actually need the /dev/
On Dec 29, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
> > aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
> > Comments and other ideas are welcome.
> What will provide this for systems upgraded from sarge?
Go
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:00:40AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > As you can see, %e will go away soon so /etc/udev/cd-aliases.rules will
> > not be supported anymore.
> > Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
> > aliase
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:00:40AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> As you can see, %e will go away soon so /etc/udev/cd-aliases.rules will
> not be supported anymore.
> Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
> aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d
On Dec 29, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this document still usable for writing udev rules?
> http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.html
The basics are there, but since then many new features like support for
environment variables have been added (they are documented in the man
On Thursday 29 December 2005 01:00, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
> aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
Is this document still usable for writing udev rules?
http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.htm
As you can see, %e will go away soon so /etc/udev/cd-aliases.rules will
not be supported anymore.
Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
Comments and other ideas are welcome.
BTW, udevsend will go away
19 matches
Mail list logo
