Control: tags -1 + upstream wontfix Hi,
On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:59:43PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > reopen 905528 > reassign 905528 util-linux > retitle 905528 nofail flag description misleading > thanks > > I misunderstood the description before. I interpreted it as using > nofail still causes boot failure. After offline discussion with the > reporter, he was saying that the man page for mount and fstab both say > that the nofail flag means "do not report errors for this device if it > does not exist". This is true for mount as it simply reports an error ( > or not ) and moves on. Agreed, but then ofcourse the caller of mount could handle this is who knows how many ways.... > However, since systemd is doing the mounting > these days, its behavior without nofail is not to simply report an error > and move on, but to hold up the boot process waiting for the device to > appear. It would be nice if at least the fstab man page would note the > systemd behavior so it does not make it sound like the only thing that > will happen if you don't use nofail is to get an error message. I don't think it's util-linux place to document how systemd (or any other similar system) works. Certainly not as a downstream debian patch. In my opinion this is basically a misdirected bug report that I'd suggest tag wontfix and close. Ofcourse if someone comes up with a suggested wording and submits it to the upstream mailing list chances are probably high that something fruitful will come out of that. Regards, Andreas Henriksson
