Before anyone tries this, it requires udev 071 (Current's is 064).

FYI.

--

..

"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).

How bout 078? Got it last week

Vigil wrote:

> Before anyone tries this, it requires udev 071 (Current's is 064).

not sure if 'requires' is the right word. I have it working just fine with
udev from -current [0.64]

On 2006-01-03, Vigil <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> Before anyone tries this, it requires udev 071 (Current's is 064).
>
> FYI.
>


2.6.15 and udev-064 is working fine for me - I didn't even have to edit
any of my custom rules...

RW

--

http://rlworkman.net

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...

--

..

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:42:40 +0000, Vigil <me@privacy.net> 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...

Quoting GregKH on lkml:
"Again, a kernel change caused a udev bug to
surface. This is the problem with 2.6.15 and input devices that are not
the aggregated mice or keyboards. A one-line fix to udev solved this."

Grant.

Vigil wrote:
> Before anyone tries this, it requires udev 071 (Current's is 064).
>
> FYI.
>
Hi, I have udev 075 installed on my 10.2 test machine and all appare
Ok except vsftpd.
clients return error like this:
-----------------------------------
230 Login successful.
ftp> ls
500 OOPS: vsf_sysutil_recv_peek
ftp> bye
Segmentation fault
-----------------------------------
no problen with 2.6.15-rc2, but rc3-rc7 the problem are the same.
not shure, with 2.6.14.5 also the same error, but not with 2.6.14.4
rebuild vsftpd but same error. same result with different server and
different clients. any idea?

tnx Paolo

Kojak wrote:
> Vigil wrote:
>
>> Before anyone tries this, it requires udev 071 (Current's is 064).
>>
>> FYI.
>>
> Hi, I have udev 075 installed on my 10.2 test machine and all appare Ok
> except vsftpd.
> clients return error like this:
> -----------------------------------
> 230 Login successful.
> ftp> ls
> 500 OOPS: vsf_sysutil_recv_peek
> ftp> bye
> Segmentation fault
> -----------------------------------
> no problen with 2.6.15-rc2, but rc3-rc7 the problem are the same.
> not shure, with 2.6.14.5 also the same error, but not with 2.6.14.4
> rebuild vsftpd but same error. same result with different server and
> different clients. any idea?

probably solved loading this modules

/etc/rc.d/rc.modules:

### Dazuko on-line scanner
/sbin/modprobe commoncap
#/sbin/modprobe dazuko
/sbin/modprobe capability

regards Paolo

"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).
>
> FYI.
>
> --
>
> .
>

Soapbox=on. Blaming=off.

I found it confusing trying to find the "Userspace" part of udev .71. I
never did find it, I just installed the source, compiled and installed the
results. All that is at the link is source code and most everything seems to
go to a udev-079 directory, I chose the most recent - after backing up the
system.

There was no information on where to put this source, there were no examples
on the make procedure, I had to divine and guess that from examination of
the make file how to install and configure.

I'm not complaining, this is probably a task intended for those who are
experienced, and not for linux newbies or ancient linux rusties like me. I
had a year of linux experience, but that was a long time ago.

I goggled for hours, no dice, nothing even close. I ended up guessing where
to put the stuff, I think I probably did something wrong but so far things
seem to be working fine.

I have learned not to ask any more or try to help in alt.os.linux because
there are many who subscribe to the old geek school as they put it and the
rules are "Be correct" If you are not correct, being polite to you is
optional. Translation: They deserve to be insulted, we are perfect,
imperfection is intolerable and you will be assimilated into our mass
killfile. A hideous view of things because a newbie who does the research
and doesn't find the answer because they don't know what to ask yet they
must be correct every time, and so its a kind of initialization and trial by
fire. Make a mistake and prepare for the punishment. Newbies and rusties are
assumed to have not RTFM and done research by default. Ironically, because
so many of them by the very nature of the questions make it LOOK like they
haven't done any research, but it might just look like that to me because I
know barely enough to know how to ask Google and get the answer to their
question.

At any rate, it seems that again, slackware has proved itself to be quite
resilient and able to cope with the mistakes of "morons" like me. Yeah, I'm
told, not to apologize or admit to mistakes because it makes me look weak
and stupid to the "Wolf Pack" but frankly my fellow acquaintances, I am
working on learning some maturity, and hardness of heart and give up the
delusion that peace and politeness is possible in some news group and
forums - I am not talking about alt.os.linux.slackware.

Soapbox mode off.

Anyway, the point is, that if anyone is brave enough to try to upgrade their
..64 udev, back up your system and go for it, It takes a bit of guesswork,
but its not as harrowing an experience as I imagined it might have been and
at least things seem to work ok so far. If anything, I hope you find this
last statement encouraging.

One thing I did learn though ... Never forget to check the
/documentation/changes file for upgrades that are over my head before trying
out a new kernel! Hehe. If I had screwed up my system, I would have nobody
else but me to blame, and would have deserved it.

Someone is going to say something like "Whining is still whining even if you
put smiley faces in it." My reply is, yes, you are correct. LOL!

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

On 2006-01-04, Garry Freemyer <garryfre@pacbell.net> wrote:
>

[about alt.os.linux]

> Ironically, because
> so many of them by the very nature of the questions make it LOOK like they
> haven't done any research,

Keep in mind that much of the time, these folks *haven't* done any
research into their problem. So perhaps the l33t-people in alt.os.linux
(and, perhaps, *gasp* even here!) have made a generalization about the
people who post poorly-phrased questions. That's not to say that the
generalization isn't valid, but that it can be unfair to the few people
who post poorly-phrased questions (for whatever reason) but *have* done
a bunch of legwork already and simply don't know where to turn next.

> At any rate, it seems that again, slackware has proved itself to be quite
> resilient and able to cope with the mistakes of "morons" like me. Yeah, I'm
> told, not to apologize or admit to mistakes because it makes me look weak
> and stupid to the "Wolf Pack"

Who told you this? I hope that's not the impression you've gotten from
the so-called pack of dogs, because I don't know anyone who is helpful
in this newsgroup who isn't also willing to admit their errors. (Keep
in mind that often what I do see is trolls calling on people to admit to
errors that are only in the minds of said trolls.)

> but frankly my fellow acquaintances, I am
> working on learning some maturity, and hardness of heart and give up the
> delusion that peace and politeness is possible in some news group and
> forums - I am not talking about alt.os.linux.slackware.

Peace and politeness *is* possible, but I think the community needs to
be small enough to police itself. It might be the case that a newsgroup
like alt.os.linux simply has too much volume for any group of people to
be able to establish reasonable posting standards. I saw this in the
comp.sys.mac.system group when I used to read it--nobody could keep up
with the group, so it tended to devolve at times.

As for your specific issue, you might try asking in one of the
comp.os.linux.* groups. I don't know how they compare to alt.os.linux,
and you will need to have done some of your own legwork, but mostly the
posters there tend to be pretty helpful. Yes, there are jerks there,
too, as there are anywhere. No, I won't name names; you'll figure it
out soon enough. Just lurk for a week or so before posting, so that you
know what to expect and know what the (de facto) posting standards are.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information