From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JGKqd-0002R2-1A for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:03:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E63E9E0412; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.21]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4E1E0412 for ; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.106] (kinkrsoftware.xs4all.nl [213.84.249.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr1.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0JL3IJR001720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:03:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from skinkie@xs4all.nl) Message-ID: <47926598.4010204@xs4all.nl> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:03:20 +0100 From: Stefan de Konink User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071225) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: Roy Marples Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Concerns about WIPE_TMP change References: <479156FF.5030508@xs4all.nl> <1200740743.1225.11.camel@localhost> <200801191554.25808.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200801191554.25808.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: be030e4a-2064-45b3-9d74-b2551f1e777e X-Archives-Hash: 73340220c4f289641cbfaa5c361609c9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Mike Frysinger schreef: > On Saturday 19 January 2008, Roy Marples wrote: >> On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 02:48 +0100, Stefan de Konink wrote: >>> In my opinion WIPE_TMP should be in the same state >>> as RC_PARALLEL_STARTUP. >> That's a fair point. > > how ? these two options are not related in the slightest. Because both options should be enabled manually under the presumption if one knows what one is doing. Potential dataloss vs Potential boot problems, I think that is the same ball park. Stefan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHkmWYYH1+F2Rqwn0RCsuKAJ9JYYk75AU0DkmDKV7nS/MPdeNLRACeIaIl jZnOJaxMD4MnO0wGS4JnZSk= =fK5B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list