On Thu, 24.01.13 14:57, Bill Nottingham (notting(a)redhat.com) wrote:
Matthew Miller (mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org) said:
> > But I guess we simply have a different definition of a user here. Your
> > definition is probably closer to what the page calls "admins", which
is
> > covered by the next lines in the feature page, which you didn't paste:
>
> Right. For Fedora, developers and admins are an important subset of users.
>
> > "As biosdevname is installed by default ... most administrators
won't
> > see this either. "
>
> If the new scheme really is better, we should suck it up and make the whole
> change. It'd be better to do what we can to make that transition easier --
> like using similar names were possible -- than to have a weird mixed state.
So, thinking - if we were to go this route, I think we'd want a clean
break, where we don't use biosdevname at all if we're using this.
The simplest way to do that would be:
- change biosdevname to not be installed by default
- enable these rules only on install, not on upgrade
both of which are pretty easily doable.
This is pretty much what both Gentoo and Arch decided to do (both of
them already adopted the scheme for new installs).
I am not too much of a fan of disable-something-on-upgrade schemes, but
I guess if that's what it takes. Also I have no better idea...
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.