On 9/20/06, Joe Ciccone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Joe Ciccone wrote: > >> What kind of incompatibilities are we talking about? udev? > > IIRC, yes -- I think we started doing that when some kernel changed the > layout of /sys. More recently, there's a kernel version floating around > somewhere that uses /sys/class/block instead of /sys/block for block > devices; that may break the udev script. I think it would make more sense to say udev bootscript and a reason, like the one mentioned above, instead of the bootscripts in general. The comment is open to a lot of interpretation.
I won't be offended if anyone wants to change the wording. It wasn't mine to start with and it doesn't seem that accurate. I'm just not in a big hurry to change it. And I'm pretty sure it was issues with udev/sysfs that drove that decision. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
