From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9C07138334 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:02:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F2B23E086A; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:02:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD4BDE0857 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:02:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15 (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D88D734D6CE; Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:02:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: Thomas Deutschmann Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH v4] mount-boot.eclass: Check if /boot is sane, but don't try to mount it. References: Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2019 17:02:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Thomas Deutschmann's message of "Sat, 7 Dec 2019 14:39:27 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4e2825c3-a92a-42ff-82a0-3588b8634d6f X-Archives-Hash: 94d21b146b1a4f7a3496ee1c341521d0 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain >>>>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2019, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > just wondering if you have seen https://bugs.gentoo.org/532264#c24. > If this is still valid, is your change really needed? I have. IIUC it is a special case for one ebuild and cannot be generalised. Ulrich --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEZlHkP3TnuTbxrN0HwwkGhRxhwnMFAl3rzPoACgkQwwkGhRxh wnO41wf+NvxpYHsREu+mOUhtnpbBHnqHnbpLJeBdQ9uuRAVk3+paFcpZdiBU19m8 YQdaokKt+il+iIN5nQ2TuIzR2Nfy1k3OYLdAQmSLWAfdl9zbDnQtU+m7+xmaWGum VenUJ5P+jHxsFOkjbQDF0vF21Q2vMq87mvUbd7581HiNDurxWVDyIuDK2q9YLLXZ qULTumXWTkOkO7VW3lHPMW0Aa5auCOVuV9aOGoJhwkyxMLD18f4NOJ4sFkXXtV9d VeGoEZcyiA99dcOv7Ea0Hp5VLKuvo8R6lOTabESXv5JTDrIdoalb0KzropCxvrne qNQQJ6oSKQzRKubXJ351QLne4pYyTg== =tqeI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--