Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-10 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Sonntag, 9. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > > Er? No. Modprobe loads it. udev calls a script that calls modprobe. We > > are not talking about where the CURRENT frambuffer blacklist exists, > > because I'm sure

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-09 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Sonntag, 9. März 2008 schrieb Tobias Powalowski: > Am Sonntag, 9. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann > > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-09 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Sonntag, 9. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-09 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > c) The *only* thing that is appropriate is to autoblacklist them via > > > modprobe

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Isenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > c) The *only* thing that is appropriate is to autoblacklist them via > > modprobe rules.. Doing it the previous way is absolute crap. > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Daniel Isenmann
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:37:24 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Thomas Bächler
Dan McGee schrieb: , it's not possible to block framebuffer loading by udev rules. Can you please explain why? Thanks. The current package has the rule KERNEL=="fb[0-9]*", GOTO="hotplug_driver_loaded" However, this rule cannot work: At the point where the driver is not loaded, all you get

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
> > no signoff > > please add the framebuffer blacklist again to load-modules.sh > > This is a terrible place for it, as I tried to explain on IRC. We > should not explicitly block a set of modules here. If we don't want > them, then why the hell do we even put them in our kernel? There was a req

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Dan McGee
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: > > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-08 Thread Tobias Powalowski
Am Samstag, 8. März 2008 schrieb Dan McGee: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Somehow, module loading is considerably faster here than before (even > > > fast than with

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-07 Thread Dan McGee
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Somehow, module loading is considerably faster here than before (even > > fast than with 118-2) > > Yeah, there were 2 filesystem globbing ba

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-07 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Somehow, module loading is considerably faster here than before (even > fast than with 118-2) Yeah, there were 2 filesystem globbing based loops in there that were the major killers... for every module load it was doing

Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-07 Thread Thomas Bächler
Aaron Griffin schrieb: Thanks Thomas for pointing out that I was trying to install start_dev 8) ** Could someone build an i686 package for me, I have no remote access to my i686 box ** Done. Reverting back to the older way of doing things, with minor improvements where they can be made

[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev 118-4

2008-03-07 Thread Aaron Griffin
Crap, I missed the start_udev install. I guess I didn't fully test support for half-upgraded systems (why are we supporting this again? not sure, but people complained loudly enough). Thanks Thomas for pointing out that I was trying to install start_dev 8) ** Could someone build an i686 package f