From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-145127-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8755D13891B
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri,  8 Feb 2013 20:17:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6E7C21C038;
	Fri,  8 Feb 2013 20:17:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (mx-out.ukfsn.org [77.75.108.125])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26EB1E062D
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  8 Feb 2013 20:17:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205])
	by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2515EC6E14
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  8 Feb 2013 20:17:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ukfsn.org ([77.75.108.125])
	by localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id goADWYBBYeLM for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>;
	Fri,  8 Feb 2013 20:17:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wstn.localnet (unknown [78.32.181.186])
	by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AABC6E34
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri,  8 Feb 2013 20:17:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org>
Organization: at home
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-191 bit me. Insufficient ptys
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:17:45 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.6.11-gentoo; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CA+czFiD0PYZ7tDr_zbq0gYeLPPp-MrTsjL4ahJL0yCr1h1bYfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEH5T2MkRVVTXTmrSfuUUCUD+Jx_WQn24cS8jYz3YqsZFP3EKA@mail.gmail.com> <51141E97.3080304@libertytrek.org>
In-Reply-To: <51141E97.3080304@libertytrek.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201302082017.45335.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org>
X-Archives-Salt: d16a7834-4751-4413-b080-ac48b31feff2
X-Archives-Hash: b26fdf7e7bd22917ef56ff3e950c5e64

On Thursday 07 February 2013 21:37:27 Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-02-07 4:25 PM, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> 
wrote:
> >> I think that a lot of people will misread that like I (we) did...
> > 
> > I believe he is correct and /dev/shm is irrelevant for this discussion.
> 
> Ok, thanks, but... and no offense...
> 
> I am not willing to gamble on breaking a remotely accessed server based
> on someone's 'I believe that this is correct' comment.

If you go ahead with your proposed change against the advice you've been 
offered, you WILL break it.

-- 
Peter