Re: udev lvm permisions

[Scott James Remnant <scott@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 741 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 18:14 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:

> Yep, and they are racy, we discussed that at the time you did that. It
> seems to work fine for you though, which is good. But I didn't want to
> add that any enterprise release, which we would need to support for
> many years. Device-mapper needs _proper_ udev integration, not a
> "overwrite each-other and the last one wins" solution. :)
> 
I don't agree that there's any race here.


I agree that there's a better long-term solution, but when there are bug
fixes that work, I prefer not to leave the bug open for N years.  (And I
have more than enough things on my own todo list to work on other
people's :p)

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]