On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 18:14 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > Yep, and they are racy, we discussed that at the time you did that. It > seems to work fine for you though, which is good. But I didn't want to > add that any enterprise release, which we would need to support for > many years. Device-mapper needs _proper_ udev integration, not a > "overwrite each-other and the last one wins" solution. :) > I don't agree that there's any race here. I agree that there's a better long-term solution, but when there are bug fixes that work, I prefer not to leave the bug open for N years. (And I have more than enough things on my own todo list to work on other people's :p) Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
