udev 146-5 and ppc64 kernel
My quad-G5 is not updatable anymore (on Debian-testing) because udev
fails to install.
Here is the message :
marie:/home/luigi# LANG=C apt-get -f install
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Correcting dependencies... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
The following packages will be upgraded:
1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded.
36 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B/459kB of archives.
After this operation, 500kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 229052 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace udev 0.141-2 (using .../udev_146-5_powerpc.deb) ...
Since release 146, udev requires support for the following features in
the running kernel:
- inotify(2) (CONFIG_INOTIFY_USER)
- signalfd(2) (CONFIG_SIGNALFD)
Please upgrade your kernel before or while upgrading udev.
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/udev_146-5_powerpc.deb
subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
Nonetheless both inotify and signalfd seems to be activated in the
marie:/home/luigi# grep -i inotify /boot/config-2.6.30-2-powerpc64
marie:/home/luigi# grep -i signalfd /boot/config-2.6.30-2-powerpc64
and of course:
marie:/home/luigi# uname -a
Linux marie 2.6.30-2-powerpc64 #1 SMP Sun Oct 4 09:29:28 UTC 2009 ppc64
Moreover it worth noting that even /proc shows that at least inotify
seems to be activated:
marie:/home/luigi# ls -ld /proc/sys/fs/inotify
dr-xr-xr-x 0 root root 0 oct 19 10:23 /proc/sys/fs/inotify
marie:/home/luigi# ls -l /proc/sys/fs/inotify
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 oct 21 21:13 max_queued_events
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 oct 21 21:13 max_user_instances
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 oct 21 21:13 max_user_watches
I don't know how to check for signalfd.
Another Debian user may have been hit by this (but no follow up that I
am aware of):
So I guess I am not the only one but the bug doesn't seems to be
Any idea that I may be missing before filling a bug report?