udev-100 [was: Glibc-2.4]
bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net
Tue Sep 19 15:35:21 PDT 2006
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> but I had the same doubt as you as to why we'd want to walk the tree,
> hence I assumed I was in need of a cluebat :-)
Well, most of the time it may not be needed. But I figure if the old
rules did it, the new ones probably should as well. At least for now.
> Feel free to commit your patch, or I'll pick it up tonight.
Well, Dan had said something about renaming the udev-config CHANGELOG
file to ChangeLog as well, and using GNU-style entries, and I figured
that was a good idea. So I'll move the file too.
Actually, these rules will require udev-098 or higher, which isn't in
the book yet -- which means if I commit this change, we'll have to hold
off on building the udev-config tarball until we update the udev
version. (It's easy enough to skip generating the tarball and putting
it on belg, but we'd have to make sure nobody else does either, or we
get a broken set of rules.) I think it'd be safer to wait until after
the udev version bump. Unless you were going to do both at the same
time? If so, feel free.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the lfs-dev