On 13.01.2012 03:18, Roger Leigh wrote:
[]
All are currently broken. Whether they cause severe breakage depends
upon the individual case. Some are working apparently OK, e.g.
mdadm. Others are doing broken things to try and create device nodes
For mdadm an upstream patch is needed. I
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 05:01:54PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
On 13.01.2012 03:18, Roger Leigh wrote:
[]
All are currently broken. Whether they cause severe breakage depends
upon the individual case. Some are working apparently OK, e.g.
mdadm. Others are doing broken things to try
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 22:11:35 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
There are 19 packages still using /dev/.udev after udev transitioned
to /run/udev. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to raise the
severity of these bugs from important to serious, given that the /run
migration is a release
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 22:11 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
There are 19 packages still using /dev/.udev after udev transitioned
to /run/udev. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to raise the
severity of these bugs from important to serious, given that the /run
migration is a release goal.
There are 19 packages still using /dev/.udev after udev transitioned
to /run/udev. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to raise the
severity of these bugs from important to serious, given that the /run
migration is a release goal.
List at
Roger Leigh wrote:
There are 19 packages still using /dev/.udev after udev transitioned
to /run/udev. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to raise the
severity of these bugs from important to serious, given that the /run
migration is a release goal.
If given that the /run migration is
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:08:13PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
There are 19 packages still using /dev/.udev after udev transitioned
to /run/udev. Unless there are any objections, I'd like to raise the
severity of these bugs from important to serious, given that the
7 matches
Mail list logo
