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