|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | SUSE Linux sometimes gets confused with multiple DVD drives, due to incorrect udev file | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] SUSE LINUX 10.0 | Reporter: | Thibaut Cousin <informatique> |
| Component: | Basesystem | Assignee: | Thomas Fehr <fehr> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | forgotten_O-K8b4H4Da, suse-beta |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | 32bit | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Customer | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
Thibaut Cousin
2006-03-03 15:46:24 UTC
Have you had a change trying this with the latest beta of 10.1 (Beta6 atm)? Is it possible to attach the YaST logfiles of this machine? No, sorry. I stumbled across the problem when I was testing a new DVD recorder. Now that it's done, I got rid of the first drive, so I no longer have two drives. And I can no longer get the log file from that time, because I reinstalled everything from scratch since then... Again, I'm sorry I can't help you more on this one. > I traced the problem to the file /etc/udev/rules.d/55-cdrom.rules
You traced the problem down so we should look into this. The problem is probably YaST cdrom module here. Taking Kay into CC for a comment.
I expect 55-cdrom.rules is from an updated Installation. If I remember correctly, current Yast creates 65-cdrom.rules, which is needed to have PATH_ID in the event environment, which comes from a 60- file. Sorry, but no. I have never, ever, updated a system. I always do clean installs. And, needless to say, I had never played with udev before I found this problem. I have four Linux boxes with SUSE 10.0, all of them have 55-cdrom.rules, not 65-cdrom.rules. Maybe this change was made after 10.0 was released? Oh, sorry. I didn't look at the Product. Yes, then 55- is right for 10.0. We do not fix such things in 10.0 code any more. That's fine by me, I'll upgrade 10.1 quickly anyway. But can I be sure that I won't find that bug in 10.1? That's all I really want. Since this part changed considerably between 10.0 and 10.1 it is hardly possible that the exactly same bug is still present in 10.1. Of course there could be other bugs in 10.1 but fixing bugs in 10.0 code would not help fixing these at all. I understand. Thanks for your attention. :) *** Bug 159413 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |