On 26.4.2016 07:43, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 04/25/2016 07:38 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 02:56:35PM +0200, Christophe Varoqui wrote:
Hi,
Those example udev rules are indeed unmaintained and should be removed not
to confuse distributors.
Distributors can't be asked to agree on a common udev ruleset. Ben,
Hannes, Xosé, Peter are you ok with my deleting the udev rules example ?
I am personally fine with kpartx.rules being deleted. Red Hat doesn't
package it.
Well, we do. We use kpartx to generate partitions for multipath and
dmraid, so we do need this rule.
Please do not delete it; if so I will only have to re-add it again
in a SUSE-specific patch.
Hi
Can you please elaborate what is the 'specific' need of SUSE for patch?
AFAIK there should be no need for it - all identifiers are not tracked by
10-dm.rules
It has whole logic about device state built-in.
So what exactly would you need to trace in kpartx.rules ?
Regards
Zdenek
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
