On Friday 30 December 2005 01.19, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:55:03PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Won't
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 12:02:44AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Hmm, that's what it does, so maybe things will be ok. I don't know
really what else might depend on there
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:48:56AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Network interfaces may be renamed after sarge to etch upgrades is
acceptable. Network interfaces may completely lose any stable naming and
may be randomly named after every reboot after sarge to etch upgrades
unless you
On Dec 29, Darren Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember them being reliable. Sacrificing their reliability at the altar of
boot speed (AIUI) wasn't really a good idea...
No reliability will be sacrified, but some things will have to be
implemented differently.
--
ciao,
Marco
I demand that Marco d'Itri may or may not have written...
On Dec 29, Darren Salt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I remember [%e etc.] being reliable. Sacrificing their reliability at the
altar of boot speed (AIUI) wasn't really a good idea...
No reliability will be sacrified, [...]
That'd be
I demand that Adrian von Bidder may or may not have written...
[snip]
stable Ethernet interface names suddenly becoming unstable in out of the
box upgrades is not funny either. Yes, there are solutions, but at least
one of these needs to be installed in a default installation of Debian.
On Dec 29, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
Comments and other ideas are welcome.
What will provide this for systems upgraded from sarge?
Good
Marco d'Itri wrote:
Good point. So it looks like that this will have to be managed by an
installed package.
I do not expect to be pratical to do this e.g. at boot time, so we need
a script to be run by a catch-all rule for devices without an alias.
BTW, does d-i actually need the /dev/cdrom
Joey Hess wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
Good point. So it looks like that this will have to be managed by an
installed package.
I do not expect to be pratical to do this e.g. at boot time, so we need
a script to be run by a catch-all rule for devices without an alias.
BTW, does d-i actually need
On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
necessarily be stable anymore.
(and, once more, and much worse:
On Dec 29, Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
necessarily be stable anymore.
No: the /dev/[sh]d* devices are as stable as they have always been.
ONLY rules using %e (the /dev/cdrom-like aliases) are unreliable.
I demand that Marco d'Itri may or may not have written...
On Dec 29, Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
necessarily be stable anymore.
No: the /dev/[sh]d* devices are as stable as they have always been.
Which is,
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:55:03PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX
Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Hmm, that's what it does, so maybe things will be ok. I don't know
really what else might depend on there being a /dev/cdrom.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description:
As you can see, %e will go away soon so /etc/udev/cd-aliases.rules will
not be supported anymore.
Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
Comments and other ideas are welcome.
BTW, udevsend will go away
On Thursday 29 December 2005 01:00, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
Is this document still usable for writing udev rules?
http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.html
On Dec 29, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this document still usable for writing udev rules?
http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.html
The basics are there, but since then many new features like support for
environment variables have been added (they are documented in the man
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:00:40AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
As you can see, %e will go away soon so /etc/udev/cd-aliases.rules will
not be supported anymore.
Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
aliases, and so far I think that this should be a task for d-i.
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:00:40AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
As you can see, %e will go away soon so /etc/udev/cd-aliases.rules will
not be supported anymore.
Some component of debian will have to install a rules file with static
aliases, and
19 matches
Mail list logo
