On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 05:26:53PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > 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? Maybe synthesize a uuid for all devices? The uuid in this case could exist entirely in the imagination of anaconda, since it would only be used as a primary key to refer to devices as they are manipulated in memory. _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
