Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow, module loading is considerably faster here than before (even fast than with 118-2)

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Dan McGee
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Tobias Powalowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somehow, module

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] hdparm 0.8.6

2008-03-08 Thread Dan McGee
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Tobias Powalowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Tobias Powalowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi version bump please signoff both arches hdparm-8.6 - add

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
no signoff please add the framebuffer blacklist again to load-modules.sh This is a terrible place for it, as I tried to explain on IRC. We should not explicitly block a set of modules here. If we don't want them, then why the hell do we even put them in our kernel? There was a request

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vi, vim gvim 267 both architectures ready for signoff

2008-03-08 Thread Dan McGee
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Tobias Kieslich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Thanks to Eric we have vi* packages for both architectures and the manpages are fixed. So please sign off. All look fine to me, signoff i686. -Dan

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] vi, vim gvim 267 both architectures ready for signoff

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Tobias Kieslich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Thanks to Eric we have vi* packages for both architectures and the manpages are fixed. So please sign off. All look fine to me, signoff i686. -Dan vi

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Thomas Bächler
Dan McGee schrieb: , it's not possible to block framebuffer loading by udev rules. Can you please explain why? Thanks. The current package has the rule KERNEL==fb[0-9]*, GOTO=hotplug_driver_loaded However, this rule cannot work: At the point where the driver is not loaded, all you get is

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Daniel Isenmann
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Tobias Powalowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 Aaron Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: c) The *only* thing that is appropriate is to autoblacklist them via modprobe rules.. Doing