Your message dated Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:08:09 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Devfs is dead
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to re
On Apr 23, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every package has certain expectations about device node names. Since devfs
> is now considered as a bad idea the naming scheme should be as well.
No, it should not.
Almost every package supports it and there is no reason to remove the
suppor
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
> > > system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
> >
> >
On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
> > system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
>
> That's fine. But regular packages should not limit thems
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sunday 27 March 2005 00:26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> > e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
>
> The SE Linux kernel code doesn't and won't support devfs. D
On Sunday 27 March 2005 00:26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
The SE Linux kernel code doesn't and won't support devfs. Devfs is on the way
out and there is no interest in ad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 29, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> - - the traditional device names should be used by default
> This is basically something which only concerns the
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 07:24:05PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> > e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
> No, but nearly all packages support both conventions.
Nearly a
On Mar 29, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - - the traditional device names should be used by default
This is basically something which only concerns the maintainers of udev
and makedev, so I don't think it's useful to define it in policy
considering that there is an agreement that to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
>> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
>
> Do it if you can. It is not mandat
On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
No, but nearly all packages support both conventions.
> I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
> application
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
Do it if you can. It is not mandated anywhere, but it is clearly a very good
idea. We should even make it a *may* in policy to stress this, I su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
application of a simple patch to allow yaboot to support it:
http://bugs.debi
13 matches
Mail list logo
