Let me explain what I think Lennart meant with those "And?" replies:
Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org)
>> wrote:
>>> * Removable media that appear in fstab are usually marked noauto
>>
>> And?
>
> Systemd
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:38 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> >
> > And change it. The request was pretty clear.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Try to stay friendly, maybe ?
> Lennart said at the outset that he was open to change it.
> And, while this discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 9:27 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
>>
>> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
>>> you make a g
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:38 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> And change it. The request was pretty clear.
>
> -Mike
Try to stay friendly, maybe ?
Lennart said at the outset that he was open to change it.
And, while this discussion rages here, he has in fact already
implemented the request
On 08/23/2010 09:33 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
>> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
>> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
>> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared a
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>> * fstab(5) documents the "noauto" option
>
> Well, what it says is that noauto results in "the -a option will not
> cause the filesystem to be mounted". And that's still the case. We
> execut
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 12:23, David Michael (fedora@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > i.e. "auto" → wait for this on boot; "noauto" → don't delay boot for this.
>>
>> I may be wron
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> >
> > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> > > you make a good case for dropping this automatism? I
On Mon, 23.08.10 12:23, David Michael (fedora@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > i.e. "auto" → wait for this on boot; "noauto" → don't delay boot for this.
>
> I may be wrong, but wasn't there already a "bootwait" and "nobootwait"
> defined
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
> mounted (or things timed out). File systems marked a
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> > you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> > to do so.
>
> That behavior might
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> i.e. "auto" → wait for this on boot; "noauto" → don't delay boot for this.
I may be wrong, but wasn't there already a "bootwait" and "nobootwait"
defined for this behavior?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
> mounted (or things timed out). Fil
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
That behavior might be fine, but don't add filesystems marked "noauto"
to the list of filesystems to be mounte
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:28, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> > you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> > to do so.
>
> The fact that
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
Yes, 'noauto' has defined semantics of 'not automatically mounted at boot';
breaking tha
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
I guess sshfs fuse entries might be problematic, because they can re
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
The fact that "noauto" in /etc/fstab is documented to not automatically
mount filesystems mea
On Sat, 21.08.10 17:11, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> I have a fstab entry like this:
>
> /dev/sde1 /mnt/sdcard autonoexec,noauto,users,ro,sync,shortname=lower 0 0
>
> which I use in a script to take pictures off my camera's SD card and
> transfer them to my photo management system
I have a fstab entry like this:
/dev/sde1 /mnt/sdcard autonoexec,noauto,users,ro,sync,shortname=lower 0 0
which I use in a script to take pictures off my camera's SD card and
transfer them to my photo management system. I've been doing it this way for
a long time, and now with modern Linux I reco
20 matches
Mail list logo
