On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 15:47 +0100, Robert Milasan wrote:
> > ... which leads me to the question: why don't we just call the
> actual
> > "eject" program? Just to avoid that dependency?
>
> Yes, we could do this, I didn't think of it :)
I can confirm this to work and it is better than
duplicating ejecting and needing to keep doing
the same fixes in two places.
But that doesn't answer the basic question. What
is this policy of effectively never locking the door
doing in udev?
Regards
Oliver
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
