From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826381381FB for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:48:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BB9C21C010; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7014FE032F for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:47:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (66-208-231-133.ubr01a.rte20201.pa.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [66.208.231.133]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKHVO-1Tp8bN3dIc-001spc; Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:47:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 06:46:58 -0600 From: Bruce Hill To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? Message-ID: <20121225124658.GR26547@server> References: <20121218163332.7956f31a@khamul.example.com> <87txrd6pb3.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121223182037.1553813f@khamul.example.com> <87bodk7lb6.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com> <50D85167.9060309@gmail.com> <50D85F68.609@gmail.com> <878v8n5w1q.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121224162935.GH26547@server> <87hana49jf.fsf@ist.utl.pt> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87hana49jf.fsf@ist.utl.pt> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Pyaw0RZnBVhobFbJklULnvA5UEhqQOuC3cyI0Pcf7HP 18qJCWN9CjrZv2GtcG/T0sf2mghkK2Xr00QgJE6dEH5Nagnnx0 XuRb+fYtn7liZzA5UGyXwsZi1E5o441DsKvRLWkDhUbn9DOo13 Fzlm+UtdiwdRQSukJ+PqzSfpjPkHmCx2VcUsDbxVvwvEjQS3hy VW1ZKkgPWxjzQX3CKsZNqv/2h4SkoMQ1nV6Ug9h72uVk4bYEh5 lOjzPSirFI1RjiwR43hdtIwmgOXn8/AgHIAUp24dTxh+uaRfnm xG+0xv1dSQlnh8FOPy0qk/GE7Bk7h8/wltFc9yCQeTsStOr/Rq /1nju5rbEmpcVWCcA8dxG1p2DpshF8ObCcgbrl6OP X-Archives-Salt: 3c8c60db-c54d-4eba-89a6-fbecd4c6e832 X-Archives-Hash: 91d3c92a721423f8f13920d6b37f36b7 On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 02:10:28PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote: > > No, actually it doesn't. It just has the same kind of very generic claim > that has been repeated several times in this thread (which is "why? > because it won't work") and links to an article that explains why some > udev rules would silently fail for all this time (for *years* now, I'd > guess). > > The article does not describe a change introduced with 181, it describes > what already happened with previous versions. I am not using >= 181 and > I do see the issues the article mentions (it does not break here because > I do not have a separate /usr, but I can see some rules that use stuff > from /usr). You have such an obvious lack of understanding, and problem comprehending English, we just don't need to post to you anymore. ;) -- Happy Penguin Computers >') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ support@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting