On Aug 27, Diederik de Haas <didi.deb...@cknow.org> wrote: > While I agree that "orphan" does mean that it is NOT actively maintained, > AFAICT the situation is a bit more blurry for "odd fixes". All these file systems are either rare enough and/or not used on removable media, so I do not believe that it is unreasonable to ask the few users that want them to be mounted automatically to disable this policy with a symlink like ln -s /dev/null /etc/udev/rules.d/75-insecure-fs.rules .
> Previously not knowing about that status, I looked up the commits where the > status was set to "odd fixes" and found that for some the reason was that the > maintainer didn't have the hardware to test it themselves. > I do not think that's the same as 'unmaintained'. It means that they are not tested enough... > I'm not sure if it would actually result in unbootable systems, but I do think > a bit more care should be taken before blacklisting modules. Did you actually read the thread? No modules are being blacklisted, the plan is just to stop udisks2 from automatically mounting such removable media. I am quite sure that routers file systems are not mounted with udisks2. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
