On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:25:50PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > Technical details :-) > > What do you miss, these are all technical details. :) In simple words, > we need a completely policy-free, not try-to-be-smart in any sense set > of functions to identify a bytestream by magic bytes. Which is exactly what mount and fsck should be doing aswell for a given device. In addition they also have the need to find a device if the fstab line is identified with LABEL and UUID. But these are rather separate issues. > Hmm, only if you reaqlly don't want to pull it in util-linux, we could > have it as a separate tree. I still think util-linux is the best place, > because the most important user of it is mount/fsck. It's your call, I > would have no problem sending patches against util-linux. :) Shipping this with util-linux would make some sense. Then again I'm a big fan of not mixing up shared libraries and binaries in the same package. This just means the distros have to split them into separate packages again. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
