[Roger Leigh]
> It is now.
OK with me. Sound like the issue I am aware of is taken care of.
Unless someone else have any objections, go ahead with fixing it. :)
Will be great to get mtab out of /etc/, where it do not belong.
--
Happy hacking
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi Petter,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:44:05PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Roger Leigh]
> > I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement
> > this. Note that it only handles migration in one direction, that
> > it, it will not switch /back/ from a symlink in the ab
[Roger Leigh]
> I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement
> this. Note that it only handles migration in one direction, that
> it, it will not switch /back/ from a symlink in the absence of
> /proc/mounts. While this could be added, is this a situation we
> really need t
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 03:26:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> tags 494001 + patch
> thanks
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 05:43:28AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
> > > Does checkroot.sh need to change at all with respect to what it does to
> > > /etc/mtab?
> [patch]
>
> I've attached a new patch aga
tags 494001 + patch
thanks
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 05:43:28AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
> > Does checkroot.sh need to change at all with respect to what it does to
> > /etc/mtab?
[patch]
I've attached a new patch against the current sources to implement
this. Note that it only handles migratio
Did anyone verify that smb and cifs mounts will get the same
information in /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts? I was just told by Steve
Langasek that it is not the case for cifs.
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 04:36:12AM +1000, Kel Modderman wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:04:00 Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in
> Does checkroot.sh need to change at all with respect to what it does to
> /etc/mtab?
For example, something like the following, which checks /etc/mtab is a symlink
on Linux and attempts to create one to /proc/mounts if the conditions are
correct. Just in case initscripts postinst maintainer scri
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 04:36:12 Kel Modderman wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:04:00 Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previo
On Saturday 21 March 2009 23:04:00 Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail, let
> > > me know and I'll redo the patch to do the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:10:58PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail, let
> > me know and I'll redo the patch to do the version check in mtab.sh.
> > The overall concensus on #debian
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> BTW, if you don't agree with the rationale in my previous mail, let
> me know and I'll redo the patch to do the version check in mtab.sh.
> The overall concensus on #debian-devel was to just kill it, though.
I just need to know WHAT is supposedly to make s
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> True, and I did consider this. However, it was pointed out that since
> squeeze would not run with kernels < 2.6.26, and Lenny uses 2.6.26, so
I'd still like to know WHAT in squeeze will break with kernels < 2.6.26. I
have already asked that, but got no
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:14:54PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
> > > older than 2
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
The version check is pretty much a good idea fo
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
> > older than 2.6.26 ?
> >
> > The version check is pretty much a good idea for safety reasons, I t
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:38:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
> older than 2.6.26 ?
>
> The version check is pretty much a good idea for safety reasons, I think it
> would be better to just leave it in, and
Are there other parts of Squeeze that would malfunction with Linux kernels
older than 2.6.26 ?
The version check is pretty much a good idea for safety reasons, I think it
would be better to just leave it in, and we can get rid of it for Squeeze+1.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to fin
tags 494001 + patch
thanks
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 03:32:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> /etc/mtab can be either a regular file updated by mount/umount, or a symlink
> to /proc/mounts. Currently, it is a regular file, though the user can change
> this by hand.
>
> With linux < 2.6.26, /proc/m
> [please CC the submitter as well as the bug number, or else they don't
> get a reply!]
Oops, sorry. For now, it's To: you plus cc to BTS. Should I cc debian-boot
as well?
> Do you have any examples of packages which use /etc/mtab in this way?
No. But...
> I checked KDE 3.5.5 and it seems to be
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:19:33PM +0200, Radim X. wrote:
[please CC the submitter as well as the bug number, or else they don't
get a reply!]
> Are you sure that this won't break things elsewhere?
Yes; the whole point of this change is to stop breaking things that are
currently broken, includin
Are you sure that this won't break things elsewhere? Other packages
might use /etc/mtab with inotify to watch mount events (especially for
removable media). They would have to switch to a different method,
since /proc does not support inotify and udev doesn't help either.
Radim
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Package: debian-installer
Severity: important
/etc/mtab can be either a regular file updated by mount/umount, or a symlink
to /proc/mounts. Currently, it is a regular file, though the user can change
this by hand.
With linux < 2.6.26, /proc/mounts lacks information present in /etc/mtab such
a
23 matches
Mail list logo
