Package: udev
Version: 0.125
Severity: grave
Hi,
the removal of the /dev/.static/dev/ hack in 0.124-1 breaks labeled
mounts (via LABEL=...) and might leave people with an unbootable system.
Reason is that findfs and friends query /etc/blkid.tab to find the
device matching the UUID. Since
reassign 493216 e2fsprogs
thanks
On Aug 01, Guido Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reason is that findfs and friends query /etc/blkid.tab to find the
device matching the UUID. Since blkid.tab has things like
/dev/.static/dev/hda7 (no idea why blkid picked that one in favour of
/dev/hda7)
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 01, Guido Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reason is that findfs and friends query /etc/blkid.tab to find the
device matching the UUID. Since blkid.tab has things like
/dev/.static/dev/hda7 (no idea why blkid picked that
Hi Marco,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[..snip..]
* put code into e2fsprogs that updates /etc/blkid.tag and let udev
conflict on older than that versions of e2fsprogs.
This is a bug which needs to be fixed, we generally do not conflict
with packages just
On Aug 01, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you someone explain to me what the heck the /dev/.static/dev/hda7
hack is all about?
udev used to make the underlying static /dev available as
/dev/.static/dev/, using a bind mount.
I removed this in 0.124-1, since it caused way more problems
severity 493216 important
thanks
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 08:24:38AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 02:13:31PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 01, Guido Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reason is that findfs and friends query /etc/blkid.tab to find the
device
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 08:57:43AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
[..snip..]
All I can think of is that at some point someone accidentally typed
the command blkid /dev/.static/dev/sda7 while running as root, and
this errant got stuck in your /etc/blkid.tab file. I see (and will
fix) the bug
On Aug 01, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I right in assuming that udev 0.125 is not something that you guys
are planning on trying to slide into Lenny?
No, both me and the d-i team definitely expect it to be in lenny.
P.S. The huge bug with libvolumeid is that it relies on
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 03:30:08PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 01, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I right in assuming that udev 0.125 is not something that you guys
are planning on trying to slide into Lenny?
No, both me and the d-i team definitely expect it to be in lenny.
9 matches
Mail list logo
