** On Apr 04, Herbert Xu scribbled: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 02:41:05PM +0200, Grendel wrote: > > ** On Apr 04, Herbert Xu scribbled: > > > > > > This has nothing to do with potato, regardless of when 2.4 is released and > > > packaged. > > > > On the contrary, it has much to do with potato - regardless of when/if 2.4 > > is released/packaged. If potato comes out without support for that file > > system then you'll soon have several dozens of bug reports that "potato > > doesn't work with 2.4.x. The System V IPC doesn't work on Debian/potato, but > > it does on RedHat 6.45". I don't want to start another endless discussion - > > it's a simple issue, doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't bother anyone, it won't > > affect the potato release cycle, etc. etc. > > We should not do it because this issue has NOT been settled. It is by no > means certain that it will be /var/shm, or even that it is needed at all. It's still in pre4-3, and it doesn't seem to be going out of the game - as it is now, and as you probably have seen on the debian-devel, some people _already_ have had problems with potato not having a clue about shmfs. > This plus the fact that we're late in the game for potato means that nothing > like this should be done. But tell me, how in the world will adding one single line to /etc/fstab slow the potato release cycle?? marek
Attachment:
pgptenodGOm56.pgp
Description: PGP signature