On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 04, Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Why do you not extend the current setup to do another step? Currently we > Even if this were possible at all, it would require (for a start): > - working out all the possible side effects of synthesizing all/most > (which ones?) events a second time
This is already the case. > - having to forward port these changes forever, with the possibility of > a new architectural change making the exercise useless at any time Which change? This is an additional init script or so. > > You could just add another ("change") trigger run after all filesystems > > are available. (Okay, this extra names must not be used in the fstab at > > all then.) > No reason to bother then, persistent names are indispensable for many > non-trivial systems. Hu? So you did not even read what I said. Bastian -- Madness has no purpose. Or reason. But it may have a goal. -- Spock, "The Alternative Factor", stardate 3088.7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org