| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 12:46 +0100, Tim Weber wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>On Tuesday 16 November 2004 18:21, Chris Barker wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>>By the way, it might be a good idea to put a comment in the standard |
| 10 |
>>>fstab to indicate that those need to be replaced with the appropriate |
| 11 |
>>>entries. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>Please file a bug at http://bugs.gentoo.org/. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>A better solution is (as always, in my opinion with system-affecting |
| 19 |
>files such as this) to instead provide a fstab.example, or not to |
| 20 |
>provide an fstab via portage, at all. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>After all, one has to create the fstab during install anyway, so why |
| 23 |
>provide a "template" that can easily break a person's system if they |
| 24 |
>aren't careful? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
I second that -- a well commented fstab.example that wouldn't overwrite |
| 29 |
your fstab would be excellent. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-desktop@g.o mailing list |
Archives