On Monday 11 September 2006 19:17, Frank Küster wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > > On Sep 11, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That's the version in testing, but the source package in sid also has > >> all that's needed to get it in again, unless there's a hard-to-see > >> subtle error. > > > > Like the update-rc.d bug discussed here in the last few days. > > Which wouldn't result in the udev binary package's postinst missing the > update-rc.d call, as George asserted.
I was terribly wrong on that assertion, sorry for the confusion. I was looking at mine own udev package (this is not like I don't trust the official one, of course, just the opposide) which doesn't call update-rc.d intentionaly. The package udev (0.100-1) currently in Sid just is fine. > And this bug probably would > disable more init scripts than this one (I didn't read it in detail, > since by chance I didn't upgrade to any problematic version). Right. This hosed my network and it took me quite awhile to get some clue about what went wrong, i.e. to suspect the sysv-rc package. After having inspected the changelog of sysv-rc and update-rc.d-recover.gz file I tried to dpkg-reconfigure most important stuff: linux-image-* (to fix modules.dep), udev, ifupdown, module-init-tools, and the list suggested by the recovery script. Now after I'm networked again I can see the mail from Kevin B. McCarty which is the case here. Yes, I was lucky I had sysv-rc 2.86.ds1-20 installed in the first place. Thanks for the help. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
