On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Gilles Espinasse <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy Huntwork" <[email protected]> > To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:54 PM > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Udev-177 & Kmod-3 WIP patch > > >> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: >> > >> > I'd be curious what's in /proc/mounts as well, but eh whatever. >> >> Is there a reason LFS doesn't just symlink /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts? >> >> JH >> -- > > In some cases, the symlink case may fail when that work with a real file > /etc/mtab. > In 2009, coreutils-8.0beta rm/one-file-system test fail with the symlink > from /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-10/msg00278.html > > the example that fail was > mount --bind /dev/shm/tmp10767 a/b > ... > umount /dev/shm/tmp10767 > umount: /dev/shm/tmp10767: not mounted > > I don't know if behavior has changed since 2009 (running kernel was probably > 2.6.24 or 2.6.16) > I read that Fedora moved the symlink from /proc/self/mount to /etc/mtab, > this is required for systemd. > > Gilles >
Not *required* but systemd will issue a warning on boot if /etc/mtab is not a symlink to /proc/mounts Then again, systemd will also issue a warning on boot if /usr is a different partition than / *sigh* @ developers who think they should determine user administration policy in code... Hint: because you think this is the way it should be done does not automatically make you right, nor make anyone who does it differently wrong Now I get to write\maintain a patch to silence your silliness in deciding how I should configure my system. -- -- - Steve Crosby -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
