Roger Leigh wrote: >> I have a >> documentation/example question though. Everywhere in the documentation >> and in the default fstab file you assert that "The format of this file >> is the same as for /etc/fstab, documented in fstab(5)". However in my >> initial proposal I dropped the 5th and 6th field, namely fs_freq and >> fs_passno. Is there a reason to maintain those without mentioning that >> their values are ignored? Or are the values in fact interpreted in some way? > > We use the standard POSIX getmntent family of functions to read the > file; these are the same functions used to read /etc/fstab and > /etc/mtab. As a result, the file format is identical, and this requires > using all 6 fields. This is more reliable than parsing the file > ourselves--we use the system parser that all other programs use. > > We don't mention that the values are ignored; this is partly because you > have to write values as you would in /etc/fstab (i.e. 0 0), and partly > because this gives us the ability to use them in the future if we wanted > to run fsck on session startup, for example. >
All points are valid, I understand the reason for this decision now. All objections withdrawn, please close this bug. Cheers Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
