On Saturday 06 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > That message looks to be the "Frans mode" to say: "I believe we should > avoid this change at this release stage and try to revert parted > change, leaving the dmraid change for post lenny".
No, what I meant was: proposing this change without even mentioning its (potential) impact on existing dmraid users is IMO completely irresponsible behavior. The way you proposed the patch looked like "hey folks, look what a nice and simple one-line solution I have found for this whole issue". To me the patch looked like an extremely simplistic attempt to shift the work away from parted which has caused the regression to another package without any thought of the consequences. And from what I've seen in the logs sent by Giuseppe I also do not think that the parted changes *in any way* improve the support for dmraid. Also, there has been absolutely no justification given for the parted change or why the added "p" would be better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
