hughsient at gmail.com
Wed Oct 19 12:01:40 PDT 2005
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 14:25 -0400, zen53696 at zen.co.uk wrote:
> OK, but the partner presumably wasn't wet behind the ears. If they could
> change that setting, not a serious issue.
A valid point I think, why do we have to *all* end users jump through
hoops for a few RHEL customers? (I appreciate they pay the bills...)
HAL could be shipped as storage.policy.should_mount by default "on"
fedora (default?), and "off" (patched) for RHEL (if it is a pressing
issue) -- is that a viable option?
More information about the hal