On Mar 02, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about using s-s-d --exec /sbin/udevd instead of
> --name? This seems more safe (although the problem is still not
--exec is bad and nobody should use it, ever.
I stopped long ago because it caused too many problems.
--
ciao
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:59:18AM -0500, pryzbyj wrote:
> tag 352554 unreproducible
> thanks
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Can you reproduce this bug with the latest udev version or should I
> > close it?
> Please let's keep it opened, since terminating ran
tag 352554 unreproducible
thanks
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:35:46PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Can you reproduce this bug with the latest udev version or should I
> close it?
Please let's keep it opened, since terminating random processes as
root is quite bad, doesn't seem to be just a hypotheti
Can you reproduce this bug with the latest udev version or should I
close it?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:09:03PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 13, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I meant if udev got killed either before s-s-d was even started, or if
> > s-s-d somehow tried to kill it twice, and failed on the second
> > attempt.
> I only checked 0.081-1,
On Feb 13, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I meant if udev got killed either before s-s-d was even started, or if
> s-s-d somehow tried to kill it twice, and failed on the second
> attempt.
I only checked 0.081-1, but the upgrade path uses start-stop-daemon
--oknodo.
Maybe s-s-d complai
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:02:04PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I had this problem on 2/3 machines I upgraded today. The upgrade that
> > worked was from 0.076-6; the other two were from 0.081-1. I donno if
> > thats relevant.
> I doubt it, both versions
On Feb 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I had this problem on 2/3 machines I upgraded today. The upgrade that
> worked was from 0.076-6; the other two were from 0.081-1. I donno if
> thats relevant.
I doubt it, both versions use s-d-d --name.
> I wonder if perhaps the udev daemon was killed by so
I had this problem on 2/3 machines I upgraded today. The upgrade that
worked was from 0.076-6; the other two were from 0.081-1. I donno if
thats relevant. The latest upgrade was also from a "held" state after
dist-upgrading everything else (except firefox), and the
already-running udev on that s
9 matches
Mail list logo
