Re: Will woody ever become stable?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:43:26PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:31:04PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > fdutils 96845 106576 111089 121713 serious patch
> > Maintainer: Vaidhyanathan G Mayilrangam
> > Somebody with a devfs system should NMU this. There's been no
> > maintainer upload since 1999, and five NMUs since then.
>
> I will do this.
I have an NMU prepared which takes the conservative approach (one line
change, test -e instead of test -f). The correct thing to do in the long
term is to use MAKEDEV, but that can wait until after woody is released.
--
- mdz
diff -ru fdutils-5.3/debian/changelog fdutils-5.3+mdz/debian/changelog
--- fdutils-5.3/debian/changelog Tue Jan 15 21:00:28 2002
+++ fdutils-5.3+mdz/debian/changelog Tue Jan 15 21:00:25 2002
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+fdutils (5.3-3.6) unstable; urgency=high
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * _Really_ don't create device nodes on devfs systems.
+ (use test -e instead of test -f for /dev/.devfsd)
+ * This really should use MAKEDEV, but this method introduces a minimum
+ of changes (one character in MAKEFLOPPIES). (Closes: #96845)
+
+ -- Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:49:03 -0500
+
fdutils (5.3-3.5) unstable; urgency=low
* Non-maintainer upload.
diff -ru fdutils-5.3/src/MAKEFLOPPIES fdutils-5.3+mdz/src/MAKEFLOPPIES
--- fdutils-5.3/src/MAKEFLOPPIES Tue Jan 15 21:00:28 2002
+++ fdutils-5.3+mdz/src/MAKEFLOPPIES Tue Jan 15 21:00:25 2002
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
set -u
# Proper way to check for devfs
-if [ -f /dev/.devfsd ]; then
+if [ -e /dev/.devfsd ]; then
echo "devfs found, skipping MAKEFLOPPIES..." >&2
exit 0
fi
Reply to: