On Apr 23, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every package has certain expectations about device node names. Since devfs
> is now considered as a bad idea the naming scheme should be as well.
No, it should not.
Almost every package supports it and there is no reason to remove the
suppor
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
> > > system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
> >
> >
On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
> > system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
>
> That's fine. But regular packages should not limit thems
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sunday 27 March 2005 00:26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> > e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
>
> The SE Linux kernel code doesn't and won't support devfs. D
On Sunday 27 March 2005 00:26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
The SE Linux kernel code doesn't and won't support devfs. Devfs is on the way
out and there is no interest in ad
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 07:24:05PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> > e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
> No, but nearly all packages support both conventions.
Nearly a
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:19:43AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
> >> applica
On Mar 28, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The yaboot maintainer has been resisting for years all kinds of sensible
> > changes (like #233810), so I'm not really surprised.
> Is there anything that could be done about this? I don't think that
> it's acceptable for the package maintaine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
>> application of a simple patch to allow yaboot to support it:
>>
>> http://bugs.debian
On Mar 26, Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
No, but nearly all packages support both conventions.
> I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
> application
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
> e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
Do it if you can. It is not mandated anywhere, but it is clearly a very good
idea. We should even make it a *may* in policy to stress this, I su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there a project-wide policy for support for devfs (and devfs-style,
e.g. udev devfs.rules) device naming?
I'm asking because of obstruction (from upstream) regarding the
application of a simple patch to allow yaboot to support it:
http://bugs.debi
12 matches
Mail list logo
