On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
> > list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.
>
> Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I ha
On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
> list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.
Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked >=181 because of
bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the
> I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
> guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
> but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
> about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
> back t
> I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
> guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
> but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
> about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
> back t
All,
the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.
I know that all versions before 133 must go because openrc has a
requirement for at least that version.
I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, bu
