https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788224 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788224#c4 --- Comment #4 from Scott Couston <secure@aphofis.com> 2013-05-27 12:20:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #3)
Well, as Jiri said: Amaintainer is needed. Every new system is different from the previous, so the modules won't trigger the right files. Has to completely be renewed. Nobody does that. That is the problem here. But if you can get someone to do it, i am fine with it, because i think it is absolutely a better option compared with the other OS.
I hear you Robby and agree. Most problems can often be solved by just doing an update using the same versions. There are places in doing this to re-write the boot loader to a new location if that mount point can no longer be mounted. HDD failure over time seem so acceptable and are treated so casually now a days. Sometime not even formatting a new volume cannot find defective areas and mark them bad and continue. ?If I had USD100.00 for ever time a new format failed to validate the integrity of volume and continue on; I would be rich. The most valuable part of the repair option was to be able to access tools where all volumes were not mounted or could be dismounted fully, I think are worthy of reinstating... Some of the other peripheral tools in the code can easily be left out as no one is going to sit through a program to test every register of the RAM. RAM is so cheap a resource these days that we can afford to just simply replace the lot of suspected defective RAM Modules. Lets see if Jiri and other's can find both a maintainer and justify the retention of manhours to retain some of the old code - Personally I dont think it is possible but I would like to think that one day we can justify reinstating and testing the old repair code or part there of.. Sorry Jiri, you got the job of re-closure and I dont envy the often difficult task of closure as cant fix... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.