On 2013-03-18 7:15 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
The above reference to 'might need packages like sys-apps/kbd', which is
now *required* by udev, suggests that now I again do need an initramsf?
That was silly - I saw kbd and read it as kmod... ok, this one is no
problem either...
One new concern - I
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:15:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Thanks for ya'lls patience. I have a feeling this is going to be
> another non-event, but I'd much prefer a little pre-update pain than a
> lot of post-update pain... ;)
quickpkg udev before the update. Then if it all goes TU, you can boot fr
Ok, spent a little time re-reading the old threads about this...
Just to confirm, changes I should make in my /etc/fstab...
normal fs lines
> # NOTE: The next line is critical for boot!
> none /proc procdefaults0 0
I can/should simply delete the above two li
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 14:33:50 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Ah, ok... but as for the rest... I should be able to safely upgrade
> udev, with a reasonable (I know there are no guarantees) expectation of
> everything 'just working' (ie, my lvm managed /usr partition shouldn't
> be an issue like it wou
On 2013-03-17 2:17 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:46:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Also, should I manually fix the blockers:
[blocks B ] sys-apps/module-init-tools
("sys-apps/module-init-tools" is blocking sys-apps/kmod-12-r1)
[blocks B ] sys-apps/kmod ("sys-apps/kmod
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:46:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Also, should I manually fix the blockers:
>
> > [blocks B ] sys-apps/module-init-tools
> > ("sys-apps/module-init-tools" is blocking sys-apps/kmod-12-r1)
> > [blocks B ] sys-apps/kmod ("sys-apps/kmod" is blocking
> > sys-apps/module
Ok, I sync'd this morning, and now see the warning about udev 171-r10
being masked, so I guess it is time..
I know this was discussed quite a bit a few months ago, but just to
refresh my memory...
My question is, if I am currently running 171-r10 on my server, and I
have a separate lvm manag
7 matches
Mail list logo
