Re: Bug#300170: Consequences of udev being pulled in by Gnome
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:38:35AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:36:12AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Mar 18, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > 3) Inform the user that a reboot is needed in order for it to work.
> > No, it's not! Months ago I did a lot of work in postinst to support
> > reboot-less installation of udev.
> > There is not enough data in this bug report to even start investigating
> > it but I believe that the problem is caused by #296776 and #296975,
> > which I fixed over a month ago but are being kept out of testing by the
> > broken arm buildd.
>
> It's also waiting on a new version of makedev, which is frozen and includes
> lots of changes not related to the udev change, and has only been in
> unstable for two days. Cc:ed to the maintainer (Bdale) as well, for
> comments on whether makedev should be pushed through.
>
> It would be good if someone could do a concrete d-i sid test with this
> version of udev, to confirm that it does solve the problems in question.
Ok, will do, i need a install on powerpc/sid using the daily builds, nothing
more, right ?
> > Cc'ed to the release managers, who may want to force again udev in
> > testing to fix these RC bugs.
>
> I suspect so, but I think it's best to let makedev age a little more before
> pushing it in. Joey, is there any d-i deadline I need to worry about for
> this? I assume that if we have a known good fix, it's not a problem for it
> to not be in the d-i rc3 release, as long as it gets on the official CD
> builds for sarge?
I believe that this is not a problem for d-i, as udev is not in base, so not
part of anything d-i builds, apart from the full isos, which are or not d-i
related.
The makedev issue could be problematic though, as you say it is part of base.
Could it be possible to have a fixed udev built against the testing version of
makedev, and push it in through testing-proposed-updates ? With manual builds
if needed.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> --
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
Reply to: