On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Helmut Jarausch
jarau...@igpm.rwth-aachen.de wrote:
On 01/11/2013 03:04:01 PM, walt wrote:
This seems to me like very happy news indeed, but I'm interested in
contrary
opinions. There's a recent thread discussing how udev-197 breaks lvm2,
but
that's a
This seems to me like very happy news indeed, but I'm interested in contrary
opinions. There's a recent thread discussing how udev-197 breaks lvm2, but
that's a trivial fix once you know about it.
The problem is caused because many apps including lvm2 install their udev
config scripts in
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to me like very happy news indeed, but I'm interested in contrary
opinions. There's a recent thread discussing how udev-197 breaks lvm2, but
that's a trivial fix once you know about it.
The problem is caused because
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:04 AM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to me like very happy news indeed, but I'm interested in contrary
opinions. There's a recent thread discussing how udev-197 breaks lvm2, but
that's a trivial fix once you know about it.
The problem is caused because
[...]
But it fixes how udev it's packaged in Gentoo, which is very good
news. I haven't upgraded, since I need systemd-197 also (which wasn't
yet in the tree yesterday), and I don't use LVM, but I'm wondering if
the LVM problem happens when you use an initramfs. I'm guessing it
doesn't,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sascha Cunz sascha...@babbelbox.org wrote:
[...]
But it fixes how udev it's packaged in Gentoo, which is very good
news. I haven't upgraded, since I need systemd-197 also (which wasn't
yet in the tree yesterday), and I don't use LVM, but I'm wondering if
the
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sascha Cunz sascha...@babbelbox.org wrote:
[...]
But it fixes how udev it's packaged in Gentoo, which is very good
news. I haven't upgraded, since I need systemd-197 also (which
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sascha Cunz sascha...@babbelbox.org wrote:
[...]
But it fixes how udev it's packaged in Gentoo, which is
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:42:37AM -0600, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
No, because the problem has never been in udev (nor systemd, for that
matter). It fixes how *Gentoo* packages udev; probably the devs read
the following comment from Lennart (note it was written almost a month
ago):
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 06:04:01AM -0800, walt wrote:
This seems to me like very happy news indeed, but I'm interested in contrary
opinions. There's a recent thread discussing how udev-197 breaks lvm2, but
that's a trivial fix once you know about it.
The problem is caused because many apps
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:42:37AM -0600, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
No, because the problem has never been in udev (nor systemd, for that
matter). It fixes how *Gentoo* packages udev; probably the devs read
the
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 05:33:30PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
The systemd defenders are using separate /usr as a wookie defense
in an attempt to divert attention form the main issue. Separate /usr
is actually a secondary issue. The main issue is whether or not we get
systemd rammed down
12 matches
Mail list logo
