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