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

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:18:10PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 ? 

Yes.  Marco says that the changes have been tested, but I'm not sure if that
includes a full d-i install, so I'd like to have one on record to be sure.

> > > 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.

Based on Bdale's feedback, I'm pushing both makedev and udev into testing

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: