Re: New field proposed, UUID
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 06:36:12PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > > Mmkay... 9 Gb mirror pulse... that will work. (not)
> >
> > That's a seperate issue that does not pertain to the UUID's. Let's discuss
> > this later.
>
> Er, so far the only reason to have a UUID that has held up to scrutiny
> revolves around whatever your signing plan is - if your signing plan is
> going to fail because in requires a 9 gig mirror pulse then we don't
> need UUIDs!
As I said, I am not discussing the signing scheme, which is to mean it
isn't ready for proposing yet. Please don't make assumptions on it without
seeing it.
> Post your scheme and we can evaluate it (and its required UUIDs) as a
> package.
UUID's extend beyond that proposal, and that proposal is not done yet.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: