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 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 optio
On 12/08/13 15:38, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to l
On 12/08/13 15:19, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen 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
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen 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 some
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen 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 wh
On 12/08/2013 13:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon 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 virtua
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen 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
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen 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 is solving the problem
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 in
On 2013-08-12 7:37 AM, Tanstaafl 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 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon 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 packages that satisfy
the v
-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
On 12/08/13 13:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen 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/eude
On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen 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'
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen 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
/var/lib/portage/world, but 'B'
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 critica
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 incl
On 2013-08-11 11:15 AM, Neil Bothwick 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.
Well, you shouldn'
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-11 6:04 AM, Neil Bothwick 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 it
On 2013-08-11 6:04 AM, Neil Bothwick 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 strategy is not to blind
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 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 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 2013-08-10 2:47 PM, Dale 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 Neil). :)
I added a foru
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-10 8:11 AM, Tanstaafl 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, t
On 2013-08-10 8:11 AM, Tanstaafl 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 about as uneventful as it
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:33:48 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl 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 laptop I switched
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 2013-08-10 10:25 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl 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
On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl 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
deal if it is 'recommended
On 2013-08-10 2:57 AM, Samuli Suominen 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
because eudev hadn't
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 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?
>
> O
On 2013-08-09 8:24 AM, Neil Bothwick 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
Two last questions
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
On 2013-08-01 2:43 PM, Neil Bothwick 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
Two last questions
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 th
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 po
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
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 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
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 u
On 2013-08-05 4:18 PM, 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 elabo
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 th
On 2013-08-05 10:10 AM, Anthony G. Basile 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 that.
For now.
And this i
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 wrote:
On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the li
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 re
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
I
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
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 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
non-
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 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 mo
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 co
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 sy
On 2013-08-04 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
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!!
D
On 2013-08-04 9:02 AM, Anthony G. Basile 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 later on.
You want e
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
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...
http://list
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 tw
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 h
On 02/08/13 19:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy 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 ~
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale 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 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale 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 | default
Yes,
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
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-01 5:41 PM, Dale 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 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
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:
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.
On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy 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 && emerge eudev
its
On 2013-08-01 5:41 PM, Dale 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 /usr/src/linux/.config | grep -
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>
On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy 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
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy 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 interfac
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Dale 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 02/08/13 08:28, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale 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
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale 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 a
Samuli Suominen writes:
> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
> single valid bug filed about them.
>
> Stop spreading FUD.
In what way are network interface names predictable? A new system
arrives on your desk, what is the name of the first (or only) Ethernet
i
On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale 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
single valid bug filed about them.
S
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 t
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 s
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 sys-fs/e
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
> sy
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 i
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.
>
>
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 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 b
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 u
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 som
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 eu
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 f
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 ude
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
Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-01 4:04 PM, Dale 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
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 blue,
On 2013-08-01 4:04 PM, Dale 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.
I would recommend go
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 c
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
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 g
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
