On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 00:24 +0200, RedShift wrote: > Thomas Bächler wrote: > > RedShift schrieb: > >> Thomas Bächler wrote: > >>> I am hacking initscripts and can't quite decide on two issues: > >>> > >>> 1) I'd like to hardcode /dev/pts/ mounting in rc.sysinit. > >> > >> What's wrong with putting that in fstab? What if I don't want to have > >> that mounted? So instead of modified fstab I'd have to mess with > >> rc.sysinit everytime the initscripts get upgraded? This is the same > >> discussion as with moving lo to rc.sysinit instead of leaving it in > >> rc.conf. Uterly pointless. > > > > The point is, everyone needs it mounted. Your system will be completely > > useless without devpts (as it is without the lo interface). > > > > However, I know your opinion on these issues. Are there any rational > > reasons not to hardcode devpts? > > > > Yes. It's not logical. fstab was made for mounting filesystems, why even > consider moving it to rc.sysinit? It's not because it makes the system > unusable without it, that it should be moved to rc.sysinit. Why the change > anyway? What's the benefit? Now we're going to see "Heeey stuff's being > mounted that's not in fstab? wtf?". This change is just plain irrational, > fstab was _specifically made_ for mounting filesystems. If you're going to > hardcode stuff like that you might as well throw away fstab. > > Glenn
/proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken without these filesystems mounted: - SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted - None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted One sidenote though: I don't think users will break their system, the /dev/shm and /dev/pts mounts are in fstab during setup and I think most people don't remove them. I haven't seen bugs about "hey my system doesn't boot, but when I add these lines to /etc/fstab it works"
