Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules

[PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-09
[PATCH 2/2] udev: Fix order of execution of the md rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-09
[PATCHv2 2/2] udev: Fix order of execution of the md rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-09
Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] udev: Fix order of execution of the md rules · NeilBrown <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] udev: Fix order of execution of the md rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · NeilBrown <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Michael Tokarev <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Michael Tokarev <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Dmitrijs Ledkovs <hidden> · 2013-02-11
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Modernize udev rules · Thomas Bächler <hidden> · 2013-02-11

From: Thomas Bächler <hidden>
Date: 2013-02-11 10:19:34

Am 11.02.2013 11:16, schrieb Michael Tokarev:

Well, it was just a question.  Think about a distribution which is being
upgraded from one release to another, -- inter-package versioned
dependencies
should be set correctly, so that the system will not be broken by upgrading
mdadm which relies on udev, but not upgrading udev.

That is true - and very important!

Attachments

signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 901 bytes

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help