| 1 |
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:37:07 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
"Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)" <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2013-03-31, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> On 2013-03-31, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>>> |
| 9 |
> >>>> |
| 10 |
> >>>> Since it's obvious that upsteam has this "my way or the highway" |
| 11 |
> >>>> mentality, I'm curious about whether eudev (and mdev) exhibits |
| 12 |
> >>>> the same behavior... |
| 13 |
> >>>> |
| 14 |
> >>> I synced yesterday and I didn't see the news alert. Last eudev |
| 15 |
> >>> update was in Feb. so I *guess* not. It seems to be a "udev" |
| 16 |
> >>> thing. That is why I mentioned eudev to someone else that was |
| 17 |
> >>> having this issue with a server setup. |
| 18 |
> >> I'd guess eudev will eventually do the same, although I hope that, |
| 19 |
> >> it being a separate codebase, makes it easier to adopt some |
| 20 |
> >> solution like the old rule generator, instead of using udev's |
| 21 |
> >> approach. |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> >> The udev upstream may have its issues, but there's actually a |
| 24 |
> >> point in removing this, the approach there was so far was just a |
| 25 |
> >> dirty hack. |
| 26 |
> >> |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > Thing is, it works for me. The old udev worked, eudev works but |
| 30 |
> > I'm not sure what hoops I would have to go through to get the new |
| 31 |
> > udev working, most likely the same ones others here are going |
| 32 |
> > through now. For once, I'm not having to deal with some broken |
| 33 |
> > issue. < knock on wood > |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > My current uptime is about 190 days. May hit it still but I'm |
| 36 |
> > certainly hoping I don't. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> And, at least now, I have got enough knowledge to know whether it |
| 39 |
> affects me or not. But the sad thing is that I got most of that |
| 40 |
> knowledge *after* the first of these versions without the old script |
| 41 |
> was stabilized. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Another sad thing is that if you want to find out about the option to |
| 44 |
keep the old-style naming rules, Udev/upgrade page |
| 45 |
<https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade> just links to bug 453494, |
| 46 |
so instead of a guide, users get to read a bug entry with 94 comments |
| 47 |
(and counting). |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I went with the new persistent names because it seemed simpler and |
| 50 |
because there was relatively clearer information about how it should be |
| 51 |
done. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Once upon a time, for an upgrade like this, Gentoo would have produced |
| 54 |
a guide summarizing the pros and cons of the two courses of actions |
| 55 |
along with a recipe for each one. (Or if not a recipe, at least a list |
| 56 |
of all the considerations needed for each path.) |
Archives