| 1 |
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:45:33 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
[about udev and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y] |
| 5 |
> A news item about this is coming down the wire very soon now (aka |
| 6 |
> within hours judging by the thread on -dev). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It's there now. Among other things, it mentions checking the /dev |
| 9 |
entry in fstab, if there is one. I don't have one, but I'm curious. Is |
| 10 |
it the udev-mount service in my default runlevel that makes it |
| 11 |
unnecessary to have /dev in fstab? Also, what would be the reasons |
| 12 |
for adding a /dev entry? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Unfortunately, it's too late for you now but at least many other users |
| 15 |
> will see the message before they emerge world and save them some pain |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yeah. I use elogv to look at anything with warnings or errors after |
| 18 |
an emerge, and I can't explain how I overlooked the bright red notice |
| 19 |
this time. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Normally, I follow this group and know what has come up for people |
| 22 |
running ~arch (or if I don't *know*, I at least remember there's to |
| 23 |
keep my eyes open for). But I've given up on following udev threads |
| 24 |
here, which tend to get pretty noisy. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Of course there's no substitute for paying attention, but it's nice to |
| 27 |
get a news item, even nicer if it comes before things hit stable. |
Archives