Ch.3.2 outdated note(?)

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at
Fri Nov 3 08:30:19 PST 2006

On 11/3/06, Matthew Burgess <matthew at> wrote:
> Thanks.  We should be using the version numbers from packages.ent,
> rather than a hard-coded value.  Unfortunately they were structured in
> such a way as to make using them in this context awkward.  I've rejigged
> things a bit and committed a fix in r7852.  I thought it was safe to
> remove the warnings about incompatibilities with the bootscripts as I
> think this was really to do with the udev related issues with 2.6.18.
> If anyone thinks the warning is still relevant, give me a shout and I'll
> put it back in.

Bryan or Alexander would know best, but I would expect this issue to
creep up until the udev/kernel interface is totally solid. Part of the
problem is the stuff in 05-early.rules which are really just
workarounds for the kernel. I don't know if those are always backwards
compatible. Hopefully this post hasn't been to FUD laden.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list