On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user
On 12/08/13 13:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default
in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names
work as designed, not
On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
virtual/udev? Or both?
It has to do with how virtuals work.
If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the
On 2013-08-12 7:37 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do*
have virtual/udev.
Crap... I meant I do NOT have sys-fs/eudev (or sys-fs/udev) in @world...
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default
in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
It
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving
On 12/08/2013 13:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
virtual/udev? Or both?
It has to do with how virtuals work.
If you have
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
annoying as 'ell and
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to
On 12/08/13 15:19, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying
On 12/08/13 15:38, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default
On 12/08/13 16:39, hasufell wrote:
On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:36:59 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes
slight incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev,
doesn't have to wait for the alternative providers.
The elegant solution is outlined in my
On 2013-08-11 6:04 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
I'm afraid that doesn't solve the problem I had at all, because I'm
running ~arch. It's as Samuli said, the eudev release lagged behind udev,
causing the virtual to look elsewhere for its satisfaction.
So, looks like the best
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-11 6:04 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
I'm afraid that doesn't solve the problem I had at all, because I'm
running ~arch. It's as Samuli said, the eudev release lagged behind
udev, causing the virtual to look
On 2013-08-11 11:15 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
So, looks like the best strategy is not to blindly update eudev, and
always check these things, before attempting an upgrade, and waiting
for it to catch up if/when it happens.
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:52:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual
was, and both cause and result were quite clear.
Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any
mission critical apps, and that would include
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:52:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual
was, and both cause and result were quite clear.
Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any
mission
On 05/08/13 23:18, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).
Can you elaborate
On 2013-08-10 2:57 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 05/08/13 23:18, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead and
reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?
Never got a response to this...
I'd prefer to not reboot if I don't have to, but it isn't *that* big a
On 2013-08-10 10:25 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead and
reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?
Never got a response to this...
I'd
Hmmm...
Do I need (I don't think so) the kmod USE flag set for eudev and
virtual/udev?
I have kernel modules disabled on this system.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:33:48 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead
and reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?
Restarting worked for me on a server. On my
On 2013-08-10 8:11 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I always emerge -pvuDN world and look very carefully at the results, and
I also wait at least 2 or 3 days before installing any system critical
updates (has saved me headaches more than once).
Ok, here goes... ;)
Well, that was
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-10 8:11 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I always emerge -pvuDN world and look very carefully at the results, and
I also wait at least 2 or 3 days before installing any system critical
updates (has saved me headaches more than once).
Ok, here goes...
On 2013-08-10 2:47 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, that was about as uneventful as it gets.
emerge -C udev
emerge -1 eudev
etc-update, accepted changes
/etc/init.d/udev restart
Done...
Thanks very much to all who replied to ease my worried mind
(especially
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:57:52AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight
incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't
have to wait for the alternative providers.
The elegant solution is outlined in my
On 11/08/13 08:36, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:57:52AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight
incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't
have to wait for the alternative providers.
The
On 2013-08-01 2:43 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
emerge -Ca udev
emerge -1a eudev
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 07:12:50 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to
eudev.
emerge -Ca udev
emerge -1a eudev
Two last questions (first one never got answered,
On 2013-08-09 8:24 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 07:12:50 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to
eudev.
emerge -Ca udev
emerge -1a eudev
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:45:47 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
No, the virtual is always needed, eudev satisfies it. but you do need
to make sure your USE settings for eudev and virtual/udev match.
Ok... so, as long as I don't have anything for either of them in
package.use, I'm ok?
Or -
On 08/05/2013 05:12 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
will not be dropped.
I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
beta too. I'm
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:10:27 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a
higher udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev
has been updated and portage
On 08/06/2013 07:20 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
On 08/05/2013 05:12 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
will not be dropped.
I noticed the other day, posted on this
On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
will not be dropped.
I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
beta too. I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me
On 04/08/13 05:56, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
Why is was forked you ask? Because of the predictable Name stuff and some
People disliked the attitude of the udev programmer which was either my
way or the high way. aside choice is always Good to have so in the end IT
was bound to happen sooner or later and is a Good thing to have.
On 05/08/13 13:27, Marc Stürmer wrote:
Why is was forked you ask? Because of the predictable Name stuff and
some People disliked the attitude of the udev programmer which was
either my way or the high way. aside choice is always Good to have so
in the end IT was bound to happen sooner or later
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:12:02AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote
I am the current lead. You may follow the activity here [1].
[1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master
Thank you very much for your work on eudev, from an end-user who
benefits from your work.
--
Walter Dnes
On 08/05/2013 06:19 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 04/08/13 05:56, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
You want eudev
Going back and re-reading finds this answer to my other last question -
also from you Neil (so thanks again!)...
But I'm curious...
On 2013-08-01 2:43 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but
On 2013-08-05 10:10 AM, Anthony G. Basile bas...@opensource.dyc.edu wrote:
On 08/05/2013 06:19 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and
you don't need eudev for
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).
Can you elaborate on what this update was that
On 2013-08-05 4:18 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
because eudev hadn't been updated (on
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 01:19:34PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
Your view and mine don't matter. Upstream's view matters. That's how
we end up with fiascos like GNOME and Microsoft's Metro interface.
Fact is that
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:18:38PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
because eudev hadn't been updated
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:10:45AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote
For now. And you get a ton of bloat. I removed over 300 unused
functions.
Wonderful. It reminds me of...
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26979.html
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
On 08/03/2013 10:56 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev
On 2013-08-04 9:02 AM, Anthony G. Basile bas...@opensource.dyc.edu wrote:
On 08/03/2013 10:56 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
will not be dropped.
I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
beta too. I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
say this: THANKS MUCH!!
Dale
On 2013-08-04 11:56 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
will not be dropped.
I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
beta too. I'm assuming you are involved in
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:39:04 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in
package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need
in package.keywords?
No and nothing. Howevr, you do need to make sure that your USE flag
settings for
Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
SNIP
2. Would anyone who is using eudev please post udev/eudev related
contents of both package.mask and package.keywords?
The reason I ask for #2 is, I've been playing with pretending emerging
after modifying package.keywords and .mask, and am confused (see
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:59:36PM -0500, Dale wrote
I have this in package.keywords
sys-fs/eudev
I did mask the - version tho since I didn't want to get that brave
in the future. I'm not sure if you have to keyword or unmask anything
now that it is not beta and been tested more.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.
i've said it many times, and i'll say it again:
the only real different is USE=rule-generator and that's it
and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
non-systemd systems dropped. Add those two
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 10:03:58AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be
built standalone and ran standalone.
For how long can it be built standalone? The following FUD brought
to you courtesy of Kay Sievers...
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface
On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au
wrote:
On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 2013-08-01 5:41 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
When the version of udev came out that was said to require a init thingy
or /usr on /, that is when I switched to eudev. I haven't used the
newer versions of udev. I do have this in my kernel config tho:
root@fireball / # cat
On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Something like
olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
=sys-fs/udev-180
...
olympus ~ #
olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
=virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
olympus ~ #
unmerge everything udev
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 08:28, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional
changes on top of udev changes.
Which is true.
Let's see them. I'll help you:
On 02/08/2013 14:10, Dale wrote:
Here is
where we will always differ, I decide on my machine what I use, NOT
YOU.
Hey Dale,
Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back :-)
[[ hugz and peace ]]
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-01 5:41 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
When the version of udev came out that was said to require a init thingy
or /usr on /, that is when I switched to eudev. I haven't used the
newer versions of udev. I do have this in my kernel config tho:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 02/08/2013 14:10, Dale wrote:
Here is
where we will always differ, I decide on my machine what I use, NOT
YOU.
Hey Dale,
Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back :-)
[[ hugz and peace ]]
This guy is about to enter Lennart territory. I see others have set
On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
hole Sunday...
This is what I have for that from rc-update show:
udev-postmount |
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Tanstaafl wrote:
But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
hole Sunday...
This is what I have for that from rc-update show:
On 02/08/13 19:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Something like
olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
=sys-fs/udev-180
...
olympus ~ #
olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
=virtual/udev-206
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs systemd
thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update, debating on
whether to update to the regular udev, or to
On 2013-08-01 12:28 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
Neglected to mention, it is still running 171-r10
Am 01.08.2013 18:28, schrieb Tanstaafl:
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from
Am 01.08.2013 19:16, schrieb Marc Stürmer:
net.ifnames=0
Worked like a charm to me.
Forgot to mention the more thorough documentation though, so here it is:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade
You
On Thursday 01 August 2013 12:28:38 Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've googled
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
emerge -Ca udev
emerge -1a eudev
But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to
Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot
On 2013-08-01 4:04 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I switched when it was still fresh and it wasn't to bad from what I
recall. Just emerge -C udev and emerge eudev. I think I masked udev to
make sure it didn't get pulled in any more by something else but other
than that, it just worked.
On 01/08/13 19:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've googled until my fingers are
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-01 4:04 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I switched when it was still fresh and it wasn't to bad from what I
recall. Just emerge -C udev and emerge eudev. I think I masked udev to
make sure it didn't get pulled in any more by something else but other
than
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 01/08/13 19:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've
On 02/08/13 00:49, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 01/08/13 19:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular
On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've googled until my fingers
On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to
On 02/08/13 07:42, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
...
so why follow with unreliable fork, when there is the official package
available with equal features?
easy - it works and while I had machines running some of
On 02/08/13 07:42, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on
On 02/08/13 03:19, William Kenworthy wrote:
On 02/08/13 07:42, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there. i've said
it many times, and i'll say it again:
the only real different is USE=rule-generator and that's it
and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:28:38PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote
Hi all,
Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
systemd thread.
I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
I've
On 02/08/13 04:01, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there. i've said
it many times, and i'll say it again:
the only real different is USE=rule-generator and that's it
and sys-fs/eudev is
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
single valid bug filed about them.
Stop spreading FUD.
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
single valid bug filed about them.
Stop spreading FUD.
Looking forward to lastrite
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
single valid bug filed about them.
Stop spreading FUD.
Looking
On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE=firmware-loader is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
single valid bug filed about them.
Stop
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
