> > IMO the kernel should ignore unrecognized options instead of
> > failing
>
> not sure of that, if i have an option that has a meaning, and it
> changes name (for whatever reason) I'd like to be notified early, not
> having to hunt problem for an option that was ignored.
the kernel should igno
Luca Berra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > IMO the kernel should ignore unrecognized options instead of
> > failing
>
> not sure of that, if i have an option that has a meaning, and it
> changes name (for whatever reason) I'd like to be notified early,
> not having to hunt problem for an option t
Pixel wrote:
Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pixel do you think we can add mode=0644 for cd and dvd drives, in
the install, with the above mentioned addition in mount.c?
no pb.
IMO the kernel should ignore unrecognized options instead of failing
not sure of that, if i have
Pixel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Pixel do you think we can add mode=0644 for cd and dvd drives, in
> > the install, with the above mentioned addition in mount.c?
>
> no pb.
>
> IMO the kernel should ignore unrecognized options instead of
Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pixel do you think we can add mode=0644 for cd and dvd drives, in
> the install, with the above mentioned addition in mount.c?
no pb.
IMO the kernel should ignore unrecognized options instead of failing
Buchan Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, double clicking on an rpm on a CD still gives some
> problem
Because of Windows-only CD that leads to all files being
executable?
I have a suggestion for that, because I've been dealing with
fixing a similar problem for a friend of m
