| 1 |
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev |
| 4 |
> > now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev |
| 5 |
> > because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to |
| 8 |
> regular udev? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by |
| 11 |
making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher |
| 12 |
udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been |
| 13 |
updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this |
| 14 |
happened regularly. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
PC DOS Error #01: Windows loading, come back tomorrow |
Archives