On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 16:47 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 15:33 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> What you have is mostly fine IMHO, it was the tarball I had a problem
> with.
Ok, in that case, it should be no sweat (relatively) to put together a
new version of the patch, updated against the 30+ commits seen since the
last version, which uses dumpe2fs in anaconda, no tarball, osmin.img
truncation, and setting loops and dms to readonly where possible.
But, before I do that, can I get feedback from one other person,
preferably who has commit authority, to tell me that this will be
committed? Jeremy, you mentioned objections in the past? (all my
goading of said objections, was because I was so sure that there is no
remotely more correct way to accomplish the task, and I would be
genuinely entertained to be corrected on that fact)
I think that some of the above will go a long way towards making things
look nicer which is going to make me more amenable to it. I still don't
necessarily _like_ it because I still think that it makes anaconda
depend a bit too much on a lot of the details; but I guess as long as it
can fall back cleanly in the absence of the bits, that just means a
larger testing matrix.
Jeremy