(Bug?): nummeration for preserved partions

[Michael Tautschnig]

Hi all,

> MT wrote:
> > Does that sufficiently clarify documentation? 
> I think so. This could at least help some people who wonder about this behaviour.
> 
> > prefer not to change the semantics of these numbers as that might break existing
> > setups in unexpected (and very dangerous) ways.
> I agree with you, but could a change be considered for one of the next "major releases" (and warn about the changes)? I think not to change this would be wrong, either.
> 
[...]

You can now get away without any numbering; you should be able to use lines such
as

primary / 12000:preserve_lazy ext3  rw

instead of using preserve_lazy:X in the disk_config line. Does that solve your
issues properly? It's part of 4.0~beta2+experimental81. Testing would be much
appreciated, didn't get around to do any testing myself yet.

Thanks a lot,
Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.uni-koeln.de/pipermail/linux-fai-devel/attachments/20110415/75742de0/attachment.bin>