On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 14:09 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Mike Hommey dijo [Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:46:11AM +0100]:
> > > > A good option would be to use LABEL or UID instead. However I am not sure if that has some drawbacks as well:
> > > >
> > > > - for uuid the system is less forgiving if you swap disks
> > > > - for label the system is less forgiving if you bring in temp. new disks
> > > >
> > > > So I think UUID has less risks.
> > >
> > > Anaconda uses LABEL. I don't know the full rationale on why this is, but
> > > it may be a good idea to follow suit.
> >
> > And thanks to that, it's a PITA to have several RH/Fedora installs on the
> > same computer.
>
> Still, it is a saner overall system. Of course, if during install d-i
> finds there is already a partition labeled 'root', it could either ask
> the user for an alternative name or set it to
> d-i-${timestamp}-root. Or label all the partitions with a timestamp,
> preemptively avoiding this kind of conflicts.
>
> FWIW, setting them by label is the most flexible and robust way, not
> tied to hardware keys or specific hookups.
It can't because 'd-i-${timestamp}-root' is longer than 16 characters.
William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part