| 1 |
On 08/28/2016 04:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:34:20 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 08/28/2016 08:30 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On 08/24/2016 09:42 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> On 08/24/2016 09:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> * no benefit put forth so far, other than that it's the same file that |
| 9 |
>>>>> systemd uses, which is true but not beneficial as far as I can tell |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> It's a de facto standard. Being different for the sake of being |
| 12 |
>>>> different is not a virtue in cases like this. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> And doing things because "everyone else does it" is dumb, because it |
| 16 |
>>> precludes our ability to choose and makes us subject to the decisions |
| 17 |
>>> made outside of our distribution. Of course, as a distro we're subject |
| 18 |
>>> to outside decisions often, but what's the point of being a distro if |
| 19 |
>>> you're doing things the same way everyone else does? |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> At this point I feel the need to point at /etc/mtab and how it doesn't |
| 23 |
>> work anymore. Or rather: |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> In the old days it did *not* carry all mountpoints, so you could hide |
| 26 |
>> things like /dev and /run so that "umount -a" would not screw you sideways. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> Then tools forgot to properly update mtab because hurr why u no symlink |
| 29 |
>> to /proc/mounts (oh wait, /proc/self/mounts ) |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> So everyone migrated to /etc/mtab as a symlink (even OpenRC, because |
| 32 |
>> everyone does it) |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> ... and now if you still instincively use umount -a you unmount /run and |
| 35 |
>> other bits, breaking lots of stuff (can't shutdown if OpenRC strongly |
| 36 |
>> considers not having booted!) |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> That's why some of us are very resistant to change. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Which could be pretty much summarized as 'I'm unhappy because I was |
| 42 |
> abusing the existing system to make "umount -a" not do what it was |
| 43 |
> supposed to do, and I'm unhappy because now it started to work |
| 44 |
> correctly'. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
"Just because it worked for 30 years doesn't mean it worked" ? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
I like how you claim to be the authority on how umount is supposed to |
| 50 |
behave ... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
(and what abuse? it did exactly what it was supposed to do quite nicely, |
| 53 |
until it stopped doing that. Now you need to track state and hope you |
| 54 |
don't have race conditions ... ) |
Archives