On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Simo Leone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 07:56:27PM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which was one of my suggestions, only I wouldn't use labels, but uuids > (not > > > every partition has a label, all have uuids). > > > > > > However, every other udev update breaks labels and uuids for > device-mapper > > > devices (like lvm), so we'd need exceptions for those (they have > persistant > > > names anyway) ... all not that pretty. > > > > I like the idea of using uuid's too.. it won't be too pretty, but it > > will give us a default that works. People can always change it to > > /dev/sda3 if they want > > > > I would say: use UUIDs and document where and when breakage occurs > > (device-mapper). Let's face it, a vast majority of people probably > > don't use lvm or crypto devices... and those that do are knowledgeable > > enough to know they may need special configuration dances > > > Done and done. Changes are in my git tree. Still need to hit the docs > [with a sledgehammer].
You modified the installer to use UUIDs? Neat. Do you have the code up somewhere?
