On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:06:48PM +0100, Felix Kuperjans wrote:
> Mike Gilbert:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans
> > wrote:
> >> Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
> >> Hello Samuli,
> >>
> >> /dev/root is no longer available
On 25/01/2013 15:23, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Even so, I could downgrade and revdep-rebuild after that, and it
> should Just Work, right?
Yes and no — you're safer if you get rid of the .so.1 first then
revdep-rebuild (if you're using preserved-libs). I know there should be
support for ldconfig NO
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Depends on whether or not you rebuilt the rdeps -- udev-197 provides
> libudev.so.1 while udev-171 provides libudev.so.0 , so there's
> breakage on stuffs like lvm2 and other ebuilds that link to libudev
Even so, I could downgrade and rev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 25/01/13 04:19 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen
> wrote:
>>>
> Also, after installing udev-197, are there any negative
> consequences to just downgrading to -171 again?
>
Depends on whether or not y
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I could see making that the default if there is no .config file
> present and a new one is being created, and perhaps upstream would
> support that since udev is popular. However, make oldconfig is
> usually used when you have a .config file
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
>
> Here's a crazy idea: can we patch our kernel to let "make oldconfig"
> default CONFIG_DEVTMPFS to true? Or better yet,
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Here's a crazy idea: can we patch our kernel to let "make oldconfig"
default CONFIG_DEVTMPFS to true? Or better yet, request that this is
changed upstream?
Also, after installing u
On 24/01/2013 20:19, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> Yep, this is a HP DL380 G6, and lspci says:
> 04:00.0 RAID bus controller: Hewlett-Packard Company Smart Array G6
> controllers (rev 01)
Hrm just for reference, I've got a number of G6s and they all work fine
with the old cciss — although they d
On 01/24/13 16:49, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/24/13 05:02, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>>
>> I've recently upgraded some server from kernel-2.6.28 to kernel-3.5.7 and
>> encountered that the root-device was renamed from /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 to
>> /dev/sda1 due to some kernel driver change (took
On 01/24/13 05:02, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
> I've recently upgraded some server from kernel-2.6.28 to kernel-3.5.7 and
> encountered that the root-device was renamed from /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 to
> /dev/sda1 due to some kernel driver change (took me a while to find out).
> I'm not using genkern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 23/01/13 05:21 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
>> On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen
>>> escribió:
please review this news i
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
> The only way I've found to keep the system bootable with both kernels
> (for the upgrade process until the new kernel config was good enough)
> was to replace /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 by /dev/root in /etc/fstab.
>
> How would this be done
On 01/23/13 19:29, Felix Kuperjans wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
>
> /dev/root is no longer available in this udev version, so people who put
> this in their /etc/fstab might end up with an unbootable system.
>
> I suggest including
On 23/01/13 21:06, Felix Kuperjans wrote:
Mike Gilbert:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans
wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Hello Samuli,
/dev/root is no longer available in this udev version, so people who put
this in the
2013/1/23 Pacho Ramos
> El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > >> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
> > >
> > > Why don't you drop "
El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> >> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
> >
> > Why don't you drop "~" from:
> > CONFIG_CHECK="
Are you sure? I have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT disabled, latest stable udev
(197-r3) and openrc (0.11.8), and no /dev line in my fstab, yet my /dev
is still a devtmpfs with a proper set of device nodes.
Chris
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:03:15 +0100
Michael Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 01/23/2013 04:04 PM,
On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Why don't you drop "~" from:
CONFIG_CHECK="~DEVTMPFS"
to ensure people really changes it in their kernel and prevent breakag
El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Why don't you drop "~" from:
CONFIG_CHECK="~DEVTMPFS"
to ensure people really changes it in their kernel and prevent breakage?
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> Ah, good to know. I'm used to dealing with my little homegrown
> initramfs, where I parse root from the kernel command line in /init.
> genkernel does the same thing.
Yeah, dracut generally "does the right thing" but that generally
assumes
Mike Gilbert:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans
> wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
>> Hello Samuli,
>>
>> /dev/root is no longer available in this udev version, so people who put
>> this in their /etc/fstab might end up
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> fstab is not consulted for mounting the root filesystem, so it doesn't
>> really matter what you have in there. Either the kernel mounts it
>> based on the kernel command line, or your i
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> fstab is not consulted for mounting the root filesystem, so it doesn't
> really matter what you have in there. Either the kernel mounts it
> based on the kernel command line, or your initramfs mounts it based on
> whatever your /init programs
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Felix Kuperjans
wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
>
> Hello Samuli,
>
> /dev/root is no longer available in this udev version, so people who put
> this in their /etc/fstab might end up with an unbootable sy
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Hello Samuli,
/dev/root is no longer available in this udev version, so people who put
this in their /etc/fstab might end up with an unbootable system.
I suggest including in the news item, that /dev/root must be
Hi,
On 01/23/2013 04:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> System seems to work fine, so I'm not sure how essential that line is.
> The fact that I'm using an initramfs might also have an effect.
I'd strongly suggest using CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y.
and stop worring about udev/openrc.
udev/openrc stopped
On 23/01/2013 16:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
> System seems to work fine, so I'm not sure how essential that line is.
> The fact that I'm using an initramfs might also have an effect.
AFAICT if you do NOT have a /dev entry you're the best off because the
init script will mount it for you.
I think th
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
>
> None are involved. The second column would read /dev if it was involved.
The news item doesn't mention what to do if there is no line to mount
/dev. I don't see one in my fstab, and I simply followed the handbook
(as it was written ~
On 23/01/13 15:44, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
not for everyone, not everyone upgrades this often, and it's usually the
servers that get updated last
Agreed, but best to get this out ASAP.
Only question - display-if-installed is set to <.
On 23/01/2013 15:02, Philip Webb wrote:
>> > - The need of CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y in the kernel; need to verify the fstype
>> > for
>> > possible /dev line in /etc/fstab is devtmpfs (and not, for example,
>> > tmpfs)
> ...
>
> I have 2 such lines :
>
> tmpfs /tmp
130123 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
...
> - The need of CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y in the kernel; need to verify the fstype for
> possible /dev line in /etc/fstab is devtmpfs (and not, for example, tmpfs)
...
I have 2 such lines :
tmpfs
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> not for everyone, not everyone upgrades this often, and it's usually the
> servers that get updated last
Agreed, but best to get this out ASAP.
Only question - display-if-installed is set to <. Would it make
sense to make it <198 ins
On 23/01/13 15:34, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 23 January 2013 13:32, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
please review this news item, seems we need one after all
+1, this would have been useful.
Looks ok but as the news item says, it's a bit too
On 23 January 2013 13:32, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
>
> +1, this would have been useful.
>
Looks ok but as the news item says, it's a bit too late ...
--
Regards,
Markos Chandras
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
+1, this would have been useful.
please review this news item, seems we need one after all
Title: Upgrading udev from 171 (or older) to 197
Author: Samuli Suominen
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2013-01-23
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/453494
[2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wik
36 matches
Mail list logo
