Your message dated Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:27:35 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: [Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#500871: schroot: Revisiting
bug#427047: followup implementation question
has caused the Debian Bug report #500871,
regarding schroot: Revisiting bug#427047: followup implementation question
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
500871: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500871
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: schroot
Version: 1.2.1-1
Severity: minor
Hi!
I finally came back to using schroot, and was delighted to find the
feature I proposed some time ago fully implemented. I have a
documentation/example question though. Everywhere in the documentation
and in the default fstab file you assert that "The format of this file
is the same as for /etc/fstab, documented in fstab(5)". However in my
initial proposal I dropped the 5th and 6th field, namely fs_freq and
fs_passno. Is there a reason to maintain those without mentioning that
their values are ignored? Or are the values in fact interpreted in some way?
Thank you
Peter
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 05:09:05PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Roger Leigh wrote:
> >> I have a
> >> documentation/example question though. Everywhere in the documentation
> >> and in the default fstab file you assert that "The format of this file
> >> is the same as for /etc/fstab, documented in fstab(5)". However in my
> >> initial proposal I dropped the 5th and 6th field, namely fs_freq and
> >> fs_passno. Is there a reason to maintain those without mentioning that
> >> their values are ignored? Or are the values in fact interpreted in some
> >> way?
> >
> > We use the standard POSIX getmntent family of functions to read the
> > file; these are the same functions used to read /etc/fstab and
> > /etc/mtab. As a result, the file format is identical, and this requires
> > using all 6 fields. This is more reliable than parsing the file
> > ourselves--we use the system parser that all other programs use.
> >
> > We don't mention that the values are ignored; this is partly because you
> > have to write values as you would in /etc/fstab (i.e. 0 0), and partly
> > because this gives us the ability to use them in the future if we wanted
> > to run fsck on session startup, for example.
> >
>
> All points are valid, I understand the reason for this decision now. All
> objections withdrawn, please close this bug.
Done. Thanks for the report. I think I might still update the
documentation to reflect the current (ignoring) behaviour, but for the
next major release I might also look into running fsck, though this is
really the job of mount(8).
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
--- End Message ---
