| 1 |
On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 20:06, Steven Elling wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 13:48, purslow@×××××××××.ca wrote: |
| 3 |
> > recently, i re-emerged 'baselayout', |
| 4 |
> > which caused a set of candidates to be created for 'etc-update'. |
| 5 |
> > most were innocuous or easily understood, |
| 6 |
> > but one was for /etc/fstab , which seems both dangerous & unjustified. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I agree! |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This has been brought to the attention of the devs already, discussed at |
| 11 |
> length, debated at length, and eventually ignored as if it is not a |
| 12 |
> problem. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Not so. It has been discussed and debated, yes, but not ignored. The |
| 15 |
only reason for the perceived inaction is really the absence of an |
| 16 |
acceptable solution. I'm toying with the notion of creating the .cfg |
| 17 |
file using the user's installed fstab file so that the diff is against a |
| 18 |
locally known quantity rather than a blind default quantity. I'm not |
| 19 |
sure on the pros and cons and haven't given the thought much air time |
| 20 |
for discussion yet, so I guess consider this the official throwing out. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Love and kisses, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Seemant Kulleen |
| 26 |
Developer and Project Co-ordinator, |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E |
| 30 |
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E |
Archives