> Author: matthew
> Date: 2006-10-04 10:40:23 -0600 (Wed, 04 Oct 2006)
> New Revision: 7807
> Upgrade to Coreutils-6.3
> Modified: trunk/BOOK/chapter06/chapter06.xml
> ===
> --- trunk/BOOK/chapter06/chapter06.xml2006-09-29 01
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> rules.d in the udev tarball from there, instead of duplicating it, as
> Mark Rosenstad has been proposing for a while.
Ack! Rosenstand, with another n. Sorry about that; apparently I can't
read, or something.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
http:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> $(lastword ) didn't work, I think because the string returned by
> udevinfo has a , in it and that has special meaning to the make
> functions.
Hmm. It worked in my CLFS system, using make 3.81. But it failed when
I just tried it in my LFS-6.1-ish system, using make 3.80.
On 10/15/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> The sucky part is that I couldn't figure out how to query the udev
> version from the installed files,
Well, this:
UDEV_VERSION = $(lastword $(shell udevinfo -V))
seems to work fine here. I doubt it's portable to oth
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Hello. Does it seem reasonable to use:
> - fwrite (...);
> + assert(fwrite (...));
> ...
> to deal with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE warnings with fwrite(), dup(), chdir(),
> fchown(), fgets(), write(), mktemp(), mkstemp(), mkdtemp(), and friends who
Seems very reasonable, but upstr
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> The sucky part is that I couldn't figure out how to query the udev
> version from the installed files,
Well, this:
UDEV_VERSION = $(lastword $(shell udevinfo -V))
seems to work fine here. I doubt it's portable to other versions of
Make, but that's OK, because udev will b
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Feel free to take it off me.
OK, will do today.
> assuming it's just a drop-in replacement.
>From my (admittedly minimal) testing, it appears to be. There aren't
any new EXTRAS, so we don't need to add any, and AFAICT we don't need to
modify the build instructions at al
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:59 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > >
> > > Why don't you supply a diff of the shipped udev rules vs. udev-config
> > > so we can see just how much of an iss
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 10/14/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Thoughts? The Makefile details can definitely be changed. I just want
> to see what people's thoughts are on the installation.
You ought to consider /usr/share/doc/udev without the $(UDEV_VERSION).
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
I'll probably do this after Udev gets updated to 102. I was going to
look into bumping the Udev version today, but it looks like Matt took
that bug, so I'll let him do it.
Feel free to take it off me. The only reason I assigned it to myself
was that I've got a bunch of
10 matches
Mail list logo
