Hi, anonym wrote (27 Nov 2013 14:00:50 GMT) : > 26/11/13 18:26, intrigeri wrote: >> So, *if* we really want to preemptively address this potential >> problem, I think I'm slightly in favour of having the user wait before >> being logged in, and ideally being explained that they might have to >> wait a bit, and if it's too long, they should report a bug.
> What about my approach + showing a notification if udev didn't settle > after the first 10 seconds, using two consecutive `udevadm > settle`:s? Looks good to me. > Furthermore, after the first `udevadm settle`, if MAC spoofing isn't > enabled, or if it is enabled *but* *it* *didn't* *fail*, then we can > ignore ignore the second `udevadm settle`, because we have the exact > conditions we were waiting for before we dare starting NetworkManager. In this (success) case, we can as well leave the 2nd `udevadm settle' since all events have been handled already at this time, so this command will return immediately, right? >> But again, I personally don't think we should worry about this right >> now. I bet we'll have enough very real problems to take care of after >> the first release that has this branch in, let's save time and energy >> for those ones. > Ok. I'd still appreciate a quick read of the above and a comment about > if you think my new solution is the way to go; if positive, I'll add > something to the blueprint so this isn't lost in case we need it. Agreed, adding this to the blueprint seems to be the way to go. Cheers! -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
