Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Version: 1.0.15-10
Duh, your mirror is fast. > MAKEDEV should be run even if udev is installed and active. In that > case MAKEDEV will create a device node in /dev/.static/dev if I thought this wasn't the case anymore ? > possible. That is good, because it means that the node will exist and > be usable if udev is later disinstalled. Thus the intent of this code > is wrong and even a policy violation (10.6). Uh ? How so ? Use udev or don't use it, in any case if something breaks it's up to you to fix it. (moreover the device nodes created in the postinst are standard and created by the installer -- the makedev calls are just here for safety and older installs where the devices might not exist, especially parport.) > However, I think that we have been lucky. udev no longer creates > /dev/.udev.tdb when it is active; instead it creates the directory > /dev/.udevdb . Therefore the "! -e /dev/.udev.tdb" test should succeed > even on systems whereon sarge udev has been installed. I haven't > checked a system on which sarge was freshly installed, but at least I > can say that on my mostly-sarge-system-with-udev there is no > /dev/.udev.tdb file. Yeah, OK, good, I'll just remove the check in -11 or -1 and wait until another udev user reports a bug telling me everything is broken. Eh, udev was supposed to solve all the problems we had with devfs, which was supposed to solve all the problems we had with static /dev. Wait... what were those problems already ? JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
