On Thu, 24.01.13 14:57, Bill Nottingham (notting@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > But I guess we simply have a different definition of a user here. Your > > > definition is probably closer to what the page calls "admins", which is > > > covered by the next lines in the feature page, which you didn't paste: > > > > Right. For Fedora, developers and admins are an important subset of users. > > > > > "As biosdevname is installed by default ... most administrators won't > > > see this either. " > > > > If the new scheme really is better, we should suck it up and make the whole > > change. It'd be better to do what we can to make that transition easier -- > > like using similar names were possible -- than to have a weird mixed state. > > So, thinking - if we were to go this route, I think we'd want a clean > break, where we don't use biosdevname at all if we're using this. > > The simplest way to do that would be: > - change biosdevname to not be installed by default > - enable these rules only on install, not on upgrade > both of which are pretty easily doable. This is pretty much what both Gentoo and Arch decided to do (both of them already adopted the scheme for new installs). I am not too much of a fan of disable-something-on-upgrade schemes, but I guess if that's what it takes. Also I have no better idea... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel