On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 03:26:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
tags 494001 + patch
thanks
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 05:43:28AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
Does checkroot.sh need to change at all with respect to what it does to
/etc/mtab?
[patch]
I've attached a new patch against the
[Roger Leigh]
I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement
this. Note that it only handles migration in one direction, that
it, it will not switch /back/ from a symlink in the absence of
/proc/mounts. While this could be added, is this a situation we
really need to
Hi Petter,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:44:05PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Roger Leigh]
I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement
this. Note that it only handles migration in one direction, that
it, it will not switch /back/ from a symlink in the absence
[Roger Leigh]
It is now.
OK with me. Sound like the issue I am aware of is taken care of.
Unless someone else have any objections, go ahead with fixing it. :)
Will be great to get mtab out of /etc/, where it do not belong.
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
tags 494001 + patch
thanks
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 05:43:28AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
Does checkroot.sh need to change at all with respect to what it does to
/etc/mtab?
[patch]
I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement
this. Note that it only handles migration
Did anyone verify that smb and cifs mounts will get the same
information in /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts? I was just told by Steve
Langasek that it is not the case for cifs.
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:04:00 Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail, let
me know and I'll redo the patch to do the version
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 04:36:12 Kel Modderman wrote:
On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:04:00 Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail,
Does checkroot.sh need to change at all with respect to what it does to
/etc/mtab?
For example, something like the following, which checks /etc/mtab is a symlink
on Linux and attempts to create one to /proc/mounts if the conditions are
correct. Just in case initscripts postinst maintainer
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 04:36:12AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:04:00 Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail, let
me know and I'll redo the patch to do the version check in mtab.sh.
The overall concensus on #debian-devel
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
The version check is pretty much a good idea
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:14:54PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
True, and I did consider this. However, it was pointed out that since
squeeze would not run with kernels 2.6.26, and Lenny uses 2.6.26, so
I'd still like to know WHAT in squeeze will break with kernels 2.6.26. I
have already asked that, but got no
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail, let
me know and I'll redo the patch to do the version check in mtab.sh.
The overall concensus on #debian-devel was to just kill it, though.
I just need to know WHAT is supposedly to make
tags 494001 + patch
thanks
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 03:32:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
/etc/mtab can be either a regular file updated by mount/umount, or a symlink
to /proc/mounts. Currently, it is a regular file, though the user can change
this by hand.
With linux 2.6.26, /proc/mounts
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
The version check is pretty much a good idea for safety reasons, I think it
would be better to just leave it in, and we can get rid of it for Squeeze+1.
--
One disk to rule them all, One disk to
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
The version check is pretty much a good idea for safety reasons, I think it
would be better to just leave it in, and we
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
The version check is pretty much a good idea for safety reasons, I think it
[please CC the submitter as well as the bug number, or else they don't
get a reply!]
Oops, sorry. For now, it's To: you plus cc to BTS. Should I cc debian-boot
as well?
Do you have any examples of packages which use /etc/mtab in this way?
No. But...
I checked KDE 3.5.5 and it seems to be
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:19:33PM +0200, Radim X. wrote:
[please CC the submitter as well as the bug number, or else they don't
get a reply!]
Are you sure that this won't break things elsewhere?
Yes; the whole point of this change is to stop breaking things that are
currently broken,
Are you sure that this won't break things elsewhere? Other packages
might use /etc/mtab with inotify to watch mount events (especially for
removable media). They would have to switch to a different method,
since /proc does not support inotify and udev doesn't help either.
Radim
--
To
Package: debian-installer
Severity: important
/etc/mtab can be either a regular file updated by mount/umount, or a symlink
to /proc/mounts. Currently, it is a regular file, though the user can change
this by hand.
With linux 2.6.26, /proc/mounts lacks information present in /etc/mtab such
23 matches
Mail list logo
