On 04/23/2009 05:11 PM, David Lehman wrote:
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 17:01 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
I envisioned this while working on a fix for bug 496638 (as that fix
has the same issues), I haven't actually tried this, but
it is pretty clear this will be a real problem.
I think we need to do something about this. Is this why we had all that
ID bullshit in the old code, I wonder?
I really, really dislike the idea of Device classes having knowledge
about the Storage object.
I second that.
Maybe we should be storing protectedPartitions
as a UUID so we can avoid this nonsense. How does that strike you?
That might work, do all potential devices always have a uuid I wonder?
It might be good to also look at the first patch of my set, that
adds a new immutableDevices array, we might want to remove
protectedPartitions and use immutableDevices for the hd media
containing partition too while we are making changes.
(I could not use protectedPartitions for the 1st patch of this set
as that would give a wrong reason for disallowing editing to the
user, we could also change protectedPartitions to be like
the new immutable devices, so contain uuid, reason tupples)
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
