| 1 |
On 2013-08-05 4:18 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> 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 |
Agreed... Anthony, can you comment on the likelihood of this happening |
| 18 |
in the future? An occasional temporary issue wouldn't trouble me, as I |
| 19 |
already wait at least a few days before updating anything critical, and |
| 20 |
it isn't like this kind of thing hasn't happened for regular udev... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thanks for the reply Neil... |
Archives