Ch.3.2 outdated note(?)
dbn.lists at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 08:30:19 PST 2006
On 11/3/06, Matthew Burgess <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> 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