On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:32:16AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:15:35AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote: > > > > ...
> udev supports devfs naming schemes if you want to use that instead. No > breakage happens. Becides the devfs naming scheme is not LSB compliant, > why would you work to implement support for such a broken scheme? Oh, it does? Thats really good news to me and settles most of my worries about devfs going away so quickly. I retract those rants then. > > Debian's development cycles have no relevance on this, sorry. The bug is about the Debian development cycles and is filed against the Debian packages (in)ability to handle it. Not against upstream udev ! > > I am well aware of Debian's kernel support, and the mess that it > currently is. Along with the mess that the current long development > cycles have caused. That was not my point here at all, I was only > stating that your comments about udev and the kernel were incorrect. > > ... > > As Debian seems wed to 2.6.8, devfs is still there, you can still use it. Debian has not wed itself to 2.6.8 . But Debians "slow" release cycle (and no other aspect of Debian kernel support, messy or not) means that 2.6.8 was the latest version to make it into "sarge". So now Debian (not upstream) needs to find a way to upgrade users from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12 (or a later kernel). And that process involves finding a way to upgrade both udev and kernel, with the complications caused by the following (from the 2.6.11 kernel README): - Keep a backup kernel handy in case something goes wrong. This is especially true for the development releases, since each new release contains new code which has not been debugged. Make sure you keep a backup of the modules corresponding to that kernel, as well. If you are installing a new kernel with the same version number as your working kernel, make a backup of your modules directory before you do a "make modules_install". The above creates a need to have a single install of udev etc. work with both the current and backup kernel. So the primary criticism is internal to Debian, not against you at upstream. Take care Jakob -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
