On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 09:50 +0100, Roman Zilka wrote:
> By the way, why not gentoo-sources-2.6.36-r5? I hope you have a good
> reason to run a system as ancient as that. Your system is swarming with
> widely known security holes.
Yes, I have a good reason for this, and I'll be responsible for security
on the box, which I'm well able to do. Security, and the relative
antiquity of the portage tree are not issues for which I'm seeking
advice, so your observations are totally beside the point, and not
particularly welcome. I'm well aware of both issues.
The challenge here is to get the system to boot with the newer kernel
and version of udev which I cited in my previous post.
/etc/fstab has been edited several times, as I noted in my post. The
kernel, udev and /etc/fstab have been now been reverted, as I also noted, so
I could get the desktop working. Considering that, posting any of the
information you've asked for would probably be useless.
Roman, if you don't have any useful insights based on the information I
already posted, then please don't post on thread and leave it to others
Having said this, I'll ask you one question:
> Also, by upgrading to a little less ancient versions than 2.6.29
> you won't have the same situation like now boomerang back at you in the
> near future.
Can you cite a source or sources for this assertion? Is there a known
problem with kernel 2.6.29, or the portage tree which spec'd that
kernel? Is there any discussion, bug report, or anything that you can
cite noting that this was a known problem at one point and addressed at
a later date?
In almost every case, I've found that people who lecture me online about
my system admin practices don't really have a handle on the issue about
which I'm writing. Please prove me wrong :-)
Lindsay Haisley |"What if the Hokey Pokey really IS all it
FMP Computer Services | really is about?"
http://www.fmp.com | -- Jimmy Buffett
Lindsay Haisley |"Windows .....
FMP Computer Services | life's too short!"
http://www.fmp.com | - Brad Johnston