On Nov 08, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I created something that may work with you (it's working for me on both
This is not a solution, you just changed a bit the problem.
We still have some processes which are supposed to exit after an unknown
time, but maybe will not.
Ho
On Nov 08, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) What causes more problems on the begging of the system startup are
> missing /dev/hd?.
This is not relevant in this context (we need to wait untill *all*
devices have been created).
> 2) They tended to be the last being created.
Th
2005/11/8, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is not a solution, you just changed a bit the problem.
> We still have some processes which are supposed to exit after an unknown
> time, but maybe will not.
Yes, I know some may still be wandering. But, on the computers I
tested, I saw two thing
2005/11/3, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:Feel free to send better code if you can write it.
A timeout is needed to break deadlocks among the init scripts and RUNrules.In fact, I don't know much about udev, so I can't write good code for it. But I created something that may work with you (it's wo
On Nov 03, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wanted to know why a timeout is used, not some kind of real
> verification. IMHO, using timeout for this looks like some kind of hack,
> and that doesn't sounds any good.
Feel free to send better code if you can write it.
A timeout is
Package: udev
Version: 0.071-1
Followup-For: Bug #336189
Hello,
I can confirm that this happens here, too. However, it happens in only
one of my two machines running Debian Sid.
On my Athlon XP 2600+, I never had any problems. However, on my
Celeron 266, I had to use a timeout of at least 35 se
6 matches
Mail list logo
