On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 20:40:48 -0500 Leonid Isaev wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:52:05 +0100 "P .NIKOLIC" wrote:

...

Hi .

I have just run pacman -Suy rebooted the system and found i could not start X getting the error message /usr/bin/X: error while loading shared libraries: libudev.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory ..

Someone has suggested the fixed version of X but it is not showing up having done a "pacman -Syyu no fix i have had to use the dodge suggested on the arch linux bbs of

ln -s /usr/lib/libudev.so.1.0.1 /usr/lib/libudev.so.0

Yes i know it is not strictly speaking the correct thing

Not only is it not correct, it is plain stupid.

...

BUT it got the system working again what i want to know is which mirror is likely to have the fixed version of X on it i can the get back to standard system .

First, your /usr/bin/Xorg has been linked against an old libudev, so creating a symlink to a new library will inevitably cause breakage. I suggest reverting all changes while you can. Second, X is not a critical package and you shouldn't mess with udev just because X fails to launch.

Regarging working versions, xorg-server 1.12.2 and systemd-tools 184-2 work together just fine.

Regarding mirrors, kernel.org and rutgers.edu are the ones which I use interchangeably since ~2009.

...

Oh i also noitced that the systemd-udev update has messed the PA sound system up

Pete .

Since you seem to be in snotty mode that i neither asked for nor required. if the mirrors were up to date then this sort of thing would not happen , So Needs must , I update this machine everyday for several days i have been told nothing to do when i run "pacman -Syu" so maybe there is a mirrors problem sorry but not my department. If there is new stuff out there and it dont hit the UK mirrors i am in the UK why should i use German mirrors . -- Linux 7-of-9 3.3.7-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue May 22 00:26:26 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

Since you  seem to be in snotty mode  that i neither asked for nor required.   if the mirrors were up to date then this sort of thing would not happen  , So Needs must  , I update this machine everyday for several days i have been told nothing to do when i run "pacman -Syu" so maybe there is a mirrors problem  sorry but not my department.

If there is new stuff out there and it dont hit the UK mirrors i am in the UK why should i use German mirrors .

Yeah, because the best response to a partially upgraded local mirror is to whine about how you should be able to use it (in a fairly parochial manner as well) rather than:- a) reporting it to the person in charge of the mirror b) changing mirrors c) actually doing anything productive which isn't ill-advised

On Jun 4, 2012 11:57 AM, "P .NIKOLIC" wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:42:30 +0800 Oon-Ee Ng wrote:

...

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:

...

Since you seem to be in snotty mode that i neither asked for nor required. if the mirrors were up to date then this sort of thing would not happen , So Needs must , I update this machine everyday for several days i have been told nothing to do when i run "pacman -Syu" so maybe there is a mirrors problem sorry but not my department.

If there is new stuff out there and it dont hit the UK mirrors i am in the UK why should i use German mirrors .

Yeah, because the best response to a partially upgraded local mirror is to whine about how you should be able to use it (in a fairly parochial manner as well) rather than:- a) reporting it to the person in charge of the mirror b) changing mirrors c) actually doing anything productive which isn't ill-advised

Well the answer once again is simple where is the published list of who controls which mirror then it would be reportable would it not

-- Linux 7-of-9 3.3.7-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue May 22 00:26:26 CEST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux

I believe this has been discussed on this Mailinglist a few weeks ago and that it is being solved, check the archives. If not, check the arch-mirrors ml: http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGUQFjAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.archlinux.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farch-mirrors&ei=DYjMT_SxNIam8gOxuekK&usg=AFQjCNFu3dgyVg64-iIHRaZMyqKc6lCp-Q T

X is not a critical package and you shouldn't mess with udev just because X fails to launch.

Is that right. Many may see X as far more critical. The drivers are in the kernel after all. I presume you mean udev problems could possibly affect bootup. If it can, maybe that's a design error? Of course that doesn't mean your not right, but maybe rephrase to your risking boot failure, if that's what you meant?