1 |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:13:09AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA256 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 29/09/15 11:10 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
6 |
> > On 29/09/15 10:52 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
7 |
> >> On 29/09/2015 16:29, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
8 |
> >>> On 28/09/15 06:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
9 |
> >>>> Also, we are dropping the use of the -O switch for |
10 |
> >>>> mount/umount -a. This is being dropped because it is |
11 |
> >>>> util-linux specific and not compatible with busybox. |
12 |
> >>> |
13 |
> >>> Does this have any actual end-user impact? AFAIK, using the |
14 |
> >>> -O switch was 'just added' by us originally (i think to |
15 |
> >>> reduce the explicit listing of the different fs types or |
16 |
> >>> otherwise simplify the init script code) right? I'm just |
17 |
> >>> wondering if this paragraph is actually necessary or not.. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> >> As a user, that para in the news makes me ask "how does this |
20 |
> >> affect me?". I have to go read man pages and init scripts to |
21 |
> >> find out. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> >> Perhaps this: |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> >> Also, we are dropping the use of the -O switch for |
26 |
> >> mount/umount -a, because it is util-linux specific and not |
27 |
> >> compatible with busybox. This only affects mounts with |
28 |
> >> "_netdev" listed under options in /etc/fstab. Such systems |
29 |
> >> should use "noauto" and/or "nofail" as described above. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> > Exactly my thoughts. We used -O _netdev within the 'netmount' |
33 |
> > script to identify which fstab entries are network mounts. But |
34 |
> > we did it a different way prior to using -O _netdev. And since |
35 |
> > this isn't actually related in any way to something end-users can |
36 |
> > set in fstab (it has to do with the filesystem type itself) I |
37 |
> > don't see the point in worrying end-users about it. |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> > I suppose it's worthwhile to note to busybox users that they no |
40 |
> > longer have to use alternate means of netmounting, as 'netmount' |
41 |
> > will now work on busybox...? |
42 |
> > |
43 |
> > Perhaps: " Also, we are dropping the use of the -O switch for |
44 |
> > mount/umount -a, to ensure the localmount and netmount scripts |
45 |
> > are compatible with busybox mount. If your system uses busybox |
46 |
> > mount please migrate any custom workarounds you may have to the |
47 |
> > openrc localmount/netmount services. " |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> |
50 |
> PS - i still think we should just cut it. |
51 |
|
52 |
What is it that you think we should cut? |
53 |
|
54 |
Thanks, |
55 |
|
56 |
William |