I wrote:
> You mean that packages which say Depends: udev (>= new version) might
> find that the old version was still in use ? Yes, that's true.
Of course I mean packages which currently say that and which, with
coinstallable udevs, would say Depends: udev-new-version.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Oct 05, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Do you disagree with any part of the analysis in my message ?
I just do not believe that your proposed solution can be implemented in
a practical and mainteanable way.
If you have time to spend implementing this then I recommend you
forward-port support for the old
Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: Bug#571255: Bidirectional incompatibility means
co-installable udevs needed"):
> On Oct 04, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If indeed the old udev doesn't work with the new kernel, and the new
> > udev doesn't work with the old kernel, and
On Oct 04, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve writes:
Sorry Steve, I should have answered your email... I promise I will do
this ASAP (short summary: you are probably right).
> If indeed the old udev doesn't work with the new kernel, and the new
> udev doesn't work with the old kernel, and this situatio
Steve writes:
> Third, you write that the old udev *also* won't work with the new
> kernel. Can you be more specific? In my testing, this also works
> fine; I wasn't able to identify anything out of place when rebooting
> to a 2.6.32 Debian kernel with a lenny udev.
If indeed the old udev doesn'
5 matches
Mail list logo
