severity 340609 normal thanks On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:19:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes: > > # 340609 > > remove fai/2.10.1 > I'm not horribly impressed by the severity of this bug. Yeah, it would be > nice to use a more appropriate FHS directory, but given that as near as I > can tell from the bug log, this FHS violation happens only during > installation, it doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm also not sure why > Steve upgraded it again for being downgraded without an explanation; the > response from Holger looks like an explanation to me. There has been quite a bit of discussion about fai FHS compliance that's not represented in this particular bug log. I'm not sure if that's because there were other bugs on fai that were already fixed, or if the emails simply did not get cc:ed over here. Anyway, at the time I re-upgraded the bug, I was under the impression that one of the problems here was that using /mnt2 could potentially collide with existing local directories as set up by the admin. Upon rereading, I see that the bug log claims this mount point is only used when setting up the client instance, such that there's zero chance of a conflict with user mountpoints. If that's true, then I agree we're fine here and don't actually need to worry about FHS conflicts. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature