Daniel B. wrote:
> What wasn't thought out well with udev? (I'm asking whether you mean
> there's a problem in its core design or whether you just mean that the
> implications weren't all thought out and handled fully before users were
> exposed to it.)
I think the people who don't like udev don
John W. M. Stevens wrote:
Udev was a response to devfs.
Sadly, BOTH systems were poorly thought out.
...
> Udev was the user space devfs, but unfortunately, it was also designed
to cover all of dev, instead of just the sub-set of hot attach/detach
devices that make sense for a "dynamic"
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:21:03AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:38:35AM -0700, John W. M. Stevens wrote:
>
>
I, for one, can see no rationale for udev in it's present form.
It works, is not a rationale. But so long as it remains optional,
I don't really care, which wa
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:38:35AM -0700, John W. M. Stevens wrote:
And yet, through all of this, no one has yet bothered to read the udev FAQ.
Not that I like udev, or care whether or not anyone uses it or not, but the
depths of ignorance are appalling.
/usr/share/doc/udev/FAQ.gz <-- if you
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:25:29AM -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Mitchell Laks wrote:
>
> "Last time" (TM) I tried udev it was a disaster. I now run 2.6.15-ck3
> w/o udev. Everything fine.
>
> This subject keeps coming up and as I watch the threads AFAICS udev's
> rationale is architectural.
Mitchell Laks wrote:
On Friday 10 February 2006 03:42 am, Andreas Janssen wrote:
Hello
Mitchell Laks (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
Now we cant upgrade debian provided kernels beyond 2.6.11 without
udev? Why is this a prerequisite?? I can install my own kernel without
it.
Of course you can. Deb
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:19:45 -0500
Mitchell Laks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 10 February 2006 03:42 am, Andreas Janssen wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Mitchell Laks (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > Now we cant upgrade debian provided kernels beyond 2.6.11 without
> > > udev? Why is this a p
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Mitchell Laks wrote:
> My main point is that there is something wrong with the default setups given
> to us with udev.
>
> Currently, udev breaks such basic things as installing raids and installing
> sound. That is crazy.
Not really. The sound devices will be there if y
On Friday 10 February 2006 03:42 am, Andreas Janssen wrote:
> Hello
>
> Mitchell Laks (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > Now we cant upgrade debian provided kernels beyond 2.6.11 without
> > udev? Why is this a prerequisite?? I can install my own kernel without
> > it.
>
> Of course you can. Debian k
Hello
Mitchell Laks (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> Now we cant upgrade debian provided kernels beyond 2.6.11 without
> udev? Why is this a prerequisite?? I can install my own kernel without
> it.
Of course you can. Debian kernels (even 2.6.15) work fine without udev
and don't depend on it. What
On 10 Feb 2006, Mitchell Laks wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Now we cant upgrade debian provided kernels beyond 2.6.11 without
> udev? Why is this a prerequisite?? I can install my own kernel without
> it.
>
> Devices are a basic thing, usually dealt with at initial system put
> together, or perhaps when
Hi,
I want to provoke some comment. Maybe we can salvage this situation.
(Mitchell dons his flame retardent clothes and jumps into swimming pool).
I am getting creamed by udev.
I just installed sarge on a ibook. I upgraded to sid and upgraded to latest
debian kernel 2.6.15. I then tried to
12 matches
Mail list logo
