On 26/10/16 11:43 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org > <mailto:a...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > On 26/10/16 04:49 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 10/25/2016 13:15, William Hubbs wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:10:06PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Hubbs > <willi...@gentoo.org <mailto:willi...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > >>>> If you are not using /dev/disk/by-* paths in fstab, you do > not need to > >>> take any action for this news item. > >>>> > >>>> If you are, it is very critical that you update fstab AS SOON AS > >>> POSSIBLE. Your system will become unbootable in the future if > you do > >>> not do so. > >>> > >>> Err, what is changing that will make systems unbootable? > >>> > >>> I am fairly certain systems running systemd will continue to work > >>> properly with either syntax. > >> > >> They probably will. > >> > >>> If this is about the udev-settle issue for OpenRC, I would > urge you to > >>> reconsider that. > >> > >> There isn't anything to reconsider afaik. The problem is that > >> /dev/disk/by-* are only created by udev/eudev, but the other > syntax > >> works regardless of which device manager you use, so this is > the safer > >> route. > >> > >> William > >> > > > > I take it us museum relics still using jurassic-era device names like > > /dev/sd* or /dev/md* aren't affected by this? > > That's correct -- the kernel's 'devtmpfs' creates those ones, whereas > the /dev/disk/by-* symlinks (pretty well all symlinks in /dev i think, > actually) are generated by udev rules. > > Actually, I wonder if the /dev/[vgname]/[lvname] paths would be > affected by this too -- those are symlinks to the actual nodes in > /dev/mapper/ after all, and are created by 11-dm-lvm.rules > > > Those are already problematic; udev and/or lvm2 seem to randomly > forget to set those up sometimes. I use /dev/mapped/vg-lv in > /etc/fstab because of that. >
If they aren't there at mount time but do show up after everything is mounted, I'm willing to bet that is caused by the same issue. I think I'll add another paragraph to the second draft about this.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
