1 |
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgrade&redirect=no |
7 |
> Comments? |
8 |
|
9 |
As I don't know who made those wiki changes, I don't know, but this |
10 |
seems to be a choice made by the gentoo udev maintainers, not |
11 |
necessarily the upstream developer's choice. |
12 |
|
13 |
Do you see any problems when running udev in such a situation that |
14 |
points at being a udev package, or udev upstream problem? |
15 |
|
16 |
> > Since this version udev depends on files in /usr. If you have /usr |
17 |
> > on a separate partition, you must boot your system with an initramfs |
18 |
> > which pre-mounts /usr. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I understand that one option being considered is patching the build to |
21 |
> not depend on files in /usr. Showing my age here, I remember when IBM |
22 |
> patched Windows 3.1 on-the-fly, to make it a DPMI client of OS/2. MS |
23 |
> released Windows 3.11, which vas very slightly different, and the patch |
24 |
> broke. IBM had to rush out a new patch. |
25 |
|
26 |
Binary patching is worlds different from source/build script patching. |
27 |
Those of us who have been doing this for a while can handle source |
28 |
patching quite easily. |
29 |
|
30 |
> Given how cavalierly Kay & Lennart broke firmware driver loading, |
31 |
|
32 |
Wait, no, first off, Lennart had nothing to do with this, and secondly, |
33 |
it was a kernel change that caused this to happen. Thirdly, it's fixed |
34 |
now, see my previous comments about this. |
35 |
|
36 |
Oh, also, did this affect your systems? Again, it was only for one type |
37 |
of device that was not used by a lot of people. |
38 |
|
39 |
That dead horse is long gone, please stop flogging it. |
40 |
|
41 |
greg k-h |