Re: [gentoo-dev] baselayout redefines /etc/fstab

[Steven Elling]

On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 00:18, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 20:06, Steven Elling wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 13:48, purslow@×××××××××.ca wrote:
> > > recently, i re-emerged 'baselayout',
> > > which caused a set of candidates to be created for 'etc-update'.
> > > most were innocuous or easily understood,
> > > but one was for  /etc/fstab , which seems both dangerous & unjustified.
> >
> > I agree!
> >
> > This has been brought to the attention of the devs already, discussed at
> > length, debated at length, and eventually ignored as if it is not a
> > problem.
>
> Not so.  It has been discussed and debated, yes, but not ignored.  The
> only reason for the perceived inaction is really the absence of an
> acceptable solution.  I'm toying with the notion of creating the .cfg
> file using the user's installed fstab file so that the diff is against a
> locally known quantity rather than a blind default quantity.  I'm not
> sure on the pros and cons and haven't given the thought much air time
> for discussion yet, so I guess consider this the official throwing out.
>
> Love and kisses,

azarah mentioned enewuser(?) and enewgroup(?) in another e-mail for
adding users and groups.  Why not do something similar for fstab?

Call it enewmount?  Have enewmount check fstab to see if the mount point
in question is already defined and if not add it to fstab.  Or, better
yet, copy fstab to ._cfg0000_fstab and add the mount point to
._cfg0000_fstab.

I think the last idea would be a very good step in the right direction. 
Any thoughts?


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list