On Mon, 18.02.13 11:52, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > Hmm, I wonder if -a or -y is the way to go. Karel, as util-linux/fsck > > > > maintainer, do you have an opinion whether we should use -a or -y for > > > > automatic, non-interactive fscking? Is -a obsolete and -y the future? > > > > > > This is gray zone... there is not explicit standard or conclusion > > > that -a (or -p) or -y is supported by all fsck.<type> checkers. > > > > > > Anyway, it seems that -a is supported on more places. > > I did small investigation and result: > > extN: -a -y > > reaiser: -a -y > > vfat: -a -y > > minix: -a > > cramfs: I'm going to improve fsck.cramfs to accept -a and -y > > xfs: fsck.xfs is dummy shell script, does nothing, accepts everything:-) > > btrfs: has --repair, it seems like synonym for -a (I'll ask for more > details at btrfs lists) > > ntfs (-3g): does not support options at all
Definitely sounds like the best to stick to "-a" then in systemd's fsck invoking tool... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
