danny.kukawka at web.de
Thu Oct 20 04:24:09 PDT 2005
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 21:01, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 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...)
I would prefer in this case to have the RHEL settings, because I wouldn't have
the same problem with the next SLES ;)
> 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?
I could also say: Have save default settings for HAL generally and provide a
patch/disto specific fdi file for you distro if you want to have this
problems if it not work for several users/customers. ;)
More information about the hal