| 1 |
On 2013-08-10 2:57 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/08/13 23:18, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev |
| 5 |
>>>> now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev |
| 6 |
>>>> because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64). |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to |
| 9 |
>>> regular udev? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by |
| 12 |
>> making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher |
| 13 |
>> udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been |
| 14 |
>> updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this |
| 15 |
>> happened regularly. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight |
| 18 |
> incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't |
| 19 |
> have to wait for the alternative providers. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And thanks for the heads up Samuli. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I always emerge -pvuDN world and look very carefully at the results, and |
| 24 |
I also wait at least 2 or 3 days before installing any system critical |
| 25 |
updates (has saved me headaches more than once). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ok, here goes... ;) |
Archives