Hello,
Theodore Ts'o (Monday 2015-01-12):
> Arguably this is as mucha bug in systemd-fsck since it could have been
> waiting for fsck to terminate instead of waiting for an EOF from the
> progress_fd pipe, but I agree that it would be better if e2fsck were
> to close the progress_fd.
Thank you. Indeed, I wasn't sure where to file this bug; I chose e2fsck
because it had suffered from a similar one, and it seemed easier to fix
as you did than to replace systemd-fsck's "while(!feof) { fscanf }" loop
with something much more complicated...
OTOH, thinking about it, other filesystems' fsck utilities might be
affected too, not just e2fsck.
Do you think this bug should be reassigned to systemd? Or that other fsck
maintainers should be made aware of the issue?
> This isn't an RC bug by any means (I don't think it even rates
> "important") since very few people are using the e2fsck.conf logging
> capabilities --- most debian users pre-systemd have been been using
> /var/log/fsck/*, and systemd will do its own journalctl thing.
I'm not as well-versed as I'd like in the various logging mechanisms, but
given that /var/log/fsck isn't mounted RW at this stage of the boot,
doesn't logging there require e2fsck.conf logging?
Besides, even though few people may be using e2fsck.conf, they may be in for
a nasty surprise when upgrading to Jessie, or systemd users if they try
tinkering with e2fsck.conf; don't you think users should be warned somehow?
Perhaps the postinst script in the Debian package could check for it?
(And this doesn't cover other distributions or filesystems, of course.
Maybe it is really systemd's problem...)
Anyway, thanks for your time, and for the patch.
Best regards,
Cedric Ware.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
