>
> Pixel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Is it necessary? I do care because I have sources on ext3 and it
gets
> > > mounted as ext2 in installer; may rw mount break something?
> >
> > ext3 is compatible with ext2, so it should not be a pb.
> >
> > > Why would we need mount source rw at all?
> >
> > i can't remember. maybe guillaume knows?
>
> Which "source"? You talk about the installation media? It's mounted
> "default", that is without the read-only flag, unless it's iso
filesystem.
> I could probably mount readonly always, if it's important!?
>
Well, if something goes wrong during installation and you are forced to
reset, mounting ro would prevent dirty file system next time, does not
it? In any case, I am unsure about mounting ext3 as ext2 that happens
here. If there is any possibility to prevent (accidental) writing, I
favor it.
-andrej
