On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:12:15AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> >
> > Steady on, old chap! By "it" I was meaning the general inconvenience
> > all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
> > everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
> > to do
On Apr 7, 2013 8:13 AM, "William Kenworthy" wrote:
>
> On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > 'Evening, Alan.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the s
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are,
> > then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the
> > same as no content at all.
>
> Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out
On 2013-04-07 12:18 PM, Jarry wrote:
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing
but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever
defaults the program is designed to use in such a case.
True, but only if ad
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reas
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
> > nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
>
> Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
> no UNcommented lines. Comments a
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> I didnt get hit either either, but ("STRONG" hint") ... I use eudev, so
> dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
> environments to jump ship?
Except the problems that udev is trying to avoid are more likely
The problem with eudev is that we are using the hardened profile and not sure
if it is part of our source tree. Right now, I just would like to
pinpoint this stubborn
little issue
I just wanted to mention that name did not change. ifconfig eth0 still pulls up
the interface, and same for ifconf
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 'Evening, Alan.
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
> typing the error message here. Did our configura
On 2013-04-06 1:50 PM, Jarry wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are
Am 06.04.2013 21:33, schrieb Mick:
> On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>>> Hi, Nick.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
>>
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> > Hi, Nick.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
> >> After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
> >> servers. When trying to start net.
Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> Hi, Nick.
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
>> After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
>> servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
>> /ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alte
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
> >> > typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
> >> > IP6? These are our
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
>> > typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
>> > IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
> No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty mu
Hi, Nick.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
> After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
> servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
> /ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
> /etc/init.d/ne
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
/ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
/etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists command not found
Errror: Interface eth0 does not exi
19 matches
Mail list logo
