1 |
On 05/08/13 23:18, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
3 |
> |
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 |
- Samuli |