On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Helmut Jarausch
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 trivial fix once you
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 trivial fix once you know about it.
The problem is caused because many apps including lvm2
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 ramme
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Walter Dnes 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 following comment fr
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 a
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 4:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sascha Cunz wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
But it fixes how udev it's packaged in Gentoo, which is very good
news. I haven't upgraded, sin
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sascha Cunz 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 yesterd
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sascha Cunz 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 LVM problem ha
[...]
> 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 8:04 AM, 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 inclu
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, 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 inclu
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 /usr/lib
13 matches
Mail list logo
