Bug#331397: What's the bug, then?
Martin-Éric Racine wrote: That /etc/fstab mounts for /proc are included in a default install? Also, an fstab entry is perhaps needed if the admin wants to mount /proc with options? -- Thomas Hood
Bug#331397: What's the bug, then?
ma, 2005-11-21 kello 16:18 +0100, Thomas Hood kirjoitti: IIUC, the submitter requested that mountall.sh call mount with the noproc option and it was later explained that this is not possible because bind mounts can be included in /etc/fstab. So it seems that users should not include an entry for /proc in /etc/fstab. What problem am I overlooking? Sorry if I'm being dense. That /etc/fstab mounts for /proc are included in a default install? If the current approach really is that proc is automatically found by mountroot.sh regardless of whether it appears in fstab or not, then perhaps initscripts should upgrade this in preinst by commenting out the fstab entry and informing the user of this change of behavior for Etch? -- Martin-Éric Racine http://q-funk.iki.fi
Bug#331397: What's the bug, then?
ma, 2005-11-21 kello 16:46 +0100, Thomas Hood kirjoitti: Martin-Éric Racine wrote: That /etc/fstab mounts for /proc are included in a default install? Also, an fstab entry is perhaps needed if the admin wants to mount /proc with options? Why not. Then again, mount(8) says: 8X- Mount options for proc uid=value and gid=value These options are recognized, but have no effect as far as I can see. 8X- Anyhow, I don't think that removing the proc entry in /etc/fstab is the solution. Rather, already mounted should not be considered a failure. That's what needs to be fixed and that would be the mountall.sh script. -- Martin-Éric Racine http://q-funk.iki.fi
