On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 12:02 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jeremy Katz (katzj@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 18:24 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > + for i in 05-udev-early.rules 40-redhat.rules > > > 50-udev-default.rules 64-device-mapper.rules 64-md-raid.rules > > > 80-drivers.rules 95-udev-late.rules ; > > > > This is going to be incredibly fragile as there's nothing that says the > > rule names are going to stay the same over time and I've already seen > > the name of 50-udev-default.rules change once in the past six months. > > Any real reason not to just take everything? > > Fewer meaningless errors from rules that we don't care about. But we certainly > could take everything. What type of errors? Also, I'd be fine with not taking everything, but only if we're auto-detecting when to leave something out (rather than the hardcoded list) Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
