[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#300170: Consequences of udev being pulled in by Gnome

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

The makedev version in testing is -75, the version in unstable is now -77.
The changelog content between the two is:

makedev (2.3.1-77) unstable; urgency=medium

  * update udev handling on advice from Marco d'Itri.  Handles more cases
    and provides the ability to override the avoidance logic if environment
    variable WRITE_ON_UDEV is set.  Urgency medium to help a new udev upload
    depending on this behavior get into sarge.  closes: #264421
  * change hwrandom to hwrng, closes: #295324
  * patch from Gaudenz Steinlin to add input/uinput support, closes: #294361
  * remove README.Debian, since the content is obsolete

 -- Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>  Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:53:32 -0700

makedev (2.3.1-76) unstable; urgency=low

  * make ppc64 an alias for powerpc, closes: #282687
  * add ttyB[0-7] to generic-hppa for console on K-class, etc, closes: #293705
  * add initial support for uba*, closes: #278237
  * add a target pmu duplicating pmu part of misc, closes: #267670, #277195
  * fix man page bug with mcdx, closes: #285258
  * add dac960_gam creation to dac960 target, closes: #272333

 -- Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>  Mon,  7 Feb 2005 13:47:00 -0700

Of this, I believe only the change of hwrandom to hwrng has the potential 
to "break" anything already existing, and I can't think of anything essential
that depends on that target.  The ttyB change enables use of d-i on some hppa
big-iron systems like the K class where it currently doesn't work.

The things that were "added" are low risk.  As long as I didn't completely
break the MAKEDEV shell script in the process, the code paths behind those 
targets don't tend to get touched by anything d-i related.

Bottom line is that yes, I think pushing -77 into testing is ok.

> I suspect so, but I think it's best to let makedev age a little more before
> pushing it in. 

The substantive changes from -76 to -77 are the udev ones, and those were
reviewed by Marco before upload.  The -76 stuff has been in unstable for a
while, so those changes should all be ok.  If Marco is happy with -77, I'd 
be inclined to push it on in to testing.


Reply to: