Bug 241389
Summary: | smartd-conf.py pulls in a big dependency chain | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> |
Component: | smartmontools | Assignee: | Tomas Smetana <tsmetana> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-06-21 13:34:38 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Ville Skyttä
2007-05-25 16:25:32 UTC
I don't know much what to do with this one, frankly. The script was introduced to ensure the smartmontools get configured and user won't have to do any manual changes. Both the proposed solutions allow the smartmontools to remain unconfigured. This is exactly what we don't want to happen. I don't see how giving users the chance to opt out from the autoconfig would be a bad thing. Approach 1) would implement that pretty trivially, and if the subpackage (let's say smartmontools-autoconfig) is installed by default in the installer, people who want it or don't mind it would just not touch it and end up having it installed and doing its thing. By the way, doesn't smartd's DEVICESCAN functionality work adequately? You're right. I have split the package and put the script in smartmontools-config. |