| 1 |
On 2013-03-18 4:18 AM, (Nuno Silva) <nunojsilva@×××××××.pt> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-03-17, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ah, ok... but as for the rest... I should be able to safely upgrade |
| 4 |
>> udev, with a reasonable (I know there are no guarantees) expectation |
| 5 |
>> of everything 'just working' (ie, my lvm managed /usr partition |
| 6 |
>> shouldn't be an issue like it would have been earlier on in this |
| 7 |
>> process)? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> From what I know (no LVM experience here), if you had it working with |
| 10 |
> 171, it will work with a newer udev. There were no changes regarding how |
| 11 |
> stuff from /usr is used between 171 and the newer udevs. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, there were 'big scary warnings'(tm) a while back that screamed of |
| 14 |
major breakage with the newer udevs for those poor lost souls who had |
| 15 |
/usr on a separate partiton (lvm managed or not), then, at some later |
| 16 |
point, I guess because of the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'(tm), the |
| 17 |
devs relented and changed things so that a separate /usr was supported |
| 18 |
except under certain specific circumstances... but since I'm not a |
| 19 |
programmer, I didn't (and still don't) understand most of it, hence my |
| 20 |
asking for confirmation here... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My system is fairly simple, all local storage, with only /usr, /var and |
| 23 |
/home on separate lvm managed partitions (root is *not* on lvm)... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So, I'm here asking if anyone who had waited (masked everything above |
| 26 |
171) has unmasked it and updated since, and whether or not they had any |
| 27 |
problems booting afterwards... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Charles |
Archives