On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:57:46AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 11, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was not the information published by Marco in his packaging changelog
and in his blog. The bug is reported against the Debian package, I believed
Marco on his word that this
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:32:16AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:15:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
...
udev supports devfs naming schemes if you want
On Jul 11, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was not the information published by Marco in his packaging changelog
and in his blog. The bug is reported against the Debian package, I believed
Marco on his word that this was an upstream change in udev, that udev 0.060
would not fully
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:15:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel
2.6.12
(a point release in the
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel 2.6.12
(a point release in the stable branch)
There is no more stable or development kernel branches anymore,
haven't been for quite some time. So this statement
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 01:02:11AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seams that if getting udev 0.6x quickly rewritten to support all
udev-based kernels in one version is too much work or too controversial, you
should do what modutils, cdrecord
On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upgrading the kernel is a non-option for solving this. It is technically
It's the best option we have so far, but you choose to ignore it.
Like it or not, udev in etch MUST be a valid, functional, drop-in, no-reboot
upgrade from udev in sarge
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel 2.6.12
(a point release in the stable branch)
There is no more stable or development kernel branches
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a = 2.6.12 kernel
thanks
On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
Not really.
According to the
On Jul 10, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seams that if getting udev 0.6x quickly rewritten to support all
udev-based kernels in one version is too much work or too controversial, you
should do what modutils, cdrecord and other packages usually do for *major*
kernel upgrades (like
Package: udev
Version: 0.060-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
According to the NEWS entry provided in the udev 0.060-1 package itself,
this version of udev is NOT COMPATIBLE with any kernel version prior to
2.6.12.
Kernel 2.6.12 has NOT
retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a = 2.6.12 kernel
thanks
On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
Not really.
According to the NEWS entry provided in the udev 0.060-1 package itself,
this version of
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
retitle 317332 udev 0.060-1 should be used with a = 2.6.12 kernel
thanks
On Jul 07, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justification: breaks the whole system, will break upgrades from sarge
Not really.
According to the NEWS
13 matches
Mail list logo
