"Vigil" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
newsan.2006.01.03.18.19.10.30921@privacy.net...
> Before anyone tries this, it requires udev 071 (Current's is 064).

On a slightly different note, should udevd be running during normal system
operation? I noticed it wasn't running (with 2.6) but /dev was fine and
chmod +x'd rc.udev and it started. However since I've recompiled it doesn't
appear to be again - I did change the cflags to optimised for performance
(O2) instead of size (Os). Everything *seems* to be running ok - just
wondering it all is aok?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:19:27 GMT, Garry Freemyer wrote:
> Grant wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:29:40 GMT, "Garry Freemyer" <garryfre@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Complain away, I'm with you The udev developers have the attitude this
>> part of it will be done by the distro. And dismiss properly documenting
>> the thing -- okay if you run SuSE or Mandrival, not so okay with the
>> Pipe Smokin' Penguin
>>

I definitely agree.
>>>Perhaps some kind soul would let ignorant sots like me know what we should
>>>do with the source code for Udev.

One option is to look at how Pat compiled udev. Make a copy of the
source/udev directory, replace the old version of udev source with
the latest source, edit the udev.Slackbuild file to refer to the new
source, and run the udev.Slackbuild file. This should make a usable
udev-079-i486-1.tgz package.

Worked here anyway.

For the more daring, you might compare the
sample rules provided with the one Pat uses and see if any could be
tweaked, updated, etc.

Brad





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFDvnBkkDp4KjYna1ARAjkmAJwIOcAKa6JPkbS7+BJKUE +h1FLZlQCfQRnR
TLs1q1fsi/cxMyW3E8tFHSE=
=MNBR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:42:40 +0000, Vigil wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:07:57 +0000, Robby Workman wrote:
>
>> 2.6.15 and udev-064 is working fine for me - I didn't even have to edit
>> any of my custom rules...
>
> Hmm. The Freshmeat changelog said it needed it. Maybe it meant it's only
> needed for a certain part, maybe that mplayer problem someone was having
> recently...
>
Nope, the mplayer bug was related to a change in the real time clock
code in rtc.c in the -rt branch. Recent versions of the patch fix
the bug, and an easy work around for the buggy kernels was to run
mplayer with the -nortc option.

Brad


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFDvnE/kDp4KjYna1ARAowHAJ9pXSxNuCp9klRCN2Aob7MDcA+rnQCcDF 5R
mpf7jrxNBv8EmKgtv3VQGiI=
=0rCP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Realto Margarino wrote:
> On a slightly different note, should udevd be running during normal system
> operation? I noticed it wasn't running (with 2.6) but /dev was fine and
> chmod +x'd rc.udev and it started. However since I've recompiled it doesn't
> appear to be again - I did change the cflags to optimised for performance
> (O2) instead of size (Os). Everything *seems* to be running ok - just
> wondering it all is aok?

Is there a roadmap to Pat add the 2.6 fully supported kernel into
Slackware?

Fernando Lujan

Fernando Lujan <fernando.lujan@yahoo.com.br> trolled:
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > On a slightly different note, should udevd be running during normal system
> > operation? I noticed it wasn't running (with 2.6) but /dev was fine and
> > chmod +x'd rc.udev and it started. However since I've recompiled it doesn't
> > appear to be again - I did change the cflags to optimised for performance
> > (O2) instead of size (Os). Everything *seems* to be running ok - just
> > wondering it all is aok?

> Is there a roadmap to Pat add the 2.6 fully supported kernel into
> Slackware?

I didn't write the above.

cordially, as always,

rm