> It is not possible to backport the changes to 9.10 because they are
very large and invasive, and touch a wide spread of the code boot of the
system.
Thats ridiculous. Didn't you already implement 99% of the changes needed
with the "bootwait" option? Just make this default and you are done.
> I
It is not possible to backport the changes to 9.10 because they are very
large and invasive, and touch a wide spread of the code boot of the
system.
I removed the security vulnerability flag because there is no
demonstrated security issue here; you do not need the security team
subscribed to the b
Why do you changed the security vulnerability flag from yes to no? Can
you give us a reason why this is *not* a security vulnerability?
Why did you changed the status to fix released when you haven't? The
problem ist still there in karmic, isn't it?
** Changed in: mountall (Ubuntu)
Status:
Why is it not possible to change this in 9.10?
--
mountall endangers system stability
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/571116
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https:
Hi Jochen,
Thanks for taking the time to let us know your thoughts; I'm sure you'll
be pleased to know that we agree with you - and that for 10.04 mountall
was changed so that it waits for all non-remote filesystems by default,
restoring previous behaviours.
It's not possible to backport this to
