| 1 |
On 2013-08-11 11:15 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So, looks like the best strategy is not to blindly update eudev, and |
| 4 |
>> always check these things, before attempting an upgrade, and waiting |
| 5 |
>> for it to catch up if/when it happens. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well, you shouldn't blindly update anything, |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
True... and I never do. I sync daily, then do an emerge -pvuDN world, |
| 10 |
and note which packages want to be updated. I then track them, and after |
| 11 |
a few days, if nothing has changed, update them. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
For critical apps (boot/system related or server app related (ie, |
| 14 |
postfix, dovecot, etc), I also always google for any problems with them |
| 15 |
(gentoo+appver) right before updating. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I was always fairly careful in the past, but I started being anal about |
| 18 |
it after I got bit by the minor mailman version bump a while (few |
| 19 |
years?) ago that changed the locations of critical stuff (like, where |
| 20 |
the lists were stored), thereby violating one of gentoo's cardinal rules |
| 21 |
that minor version bumps don't make changes that break things, at least |
| 22 |
not without lots of warning in the form of a detailed news item |
| 23 |
explaining what needs to be done to avoid the breakage. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual |
| 26 |
> was, and both cause and result were quite clear. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any |
| 29 |
mission critical apps, and that would include the virtual/udev as well. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That said - shouldn't this be taken care of by the the virtual/udev |
| 32 |
package itself? Shoudln't it keep track of what versions of udev *and* |
| 33 |
eudev it supports, and warn you (via a [B]blocker)? |
Archives