On Sat, 21.08.10 17:11, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
I have a fstab entry like this:
/dev/sde1 /mnt/sdcard autonoexec,noauto,users,ro,sync,shortname=lower 0 0
which I use in a script to take pictures off my camera's SD card and
transfer them to my photo management system.
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
to do so.
The fact that noauto in /etc/fstab is documented to not automatically
mount
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
to do so.
I guess sshfs fuse entries might be problematic, because they can
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
to do so.
Yes, 'noauto' has defined semantics of 'not automatically mounted at boot';
breaking that
Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
to do so.
That behavior might be fine, but don't add filesystems marked noauto
to the list of filesystems to be mounted
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
than you: everything marked auto will be mounted at boot, and boot
will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
mounted (or things
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
i.e. auto → wait for this on boot; noauto → don't delay boot for this.
I may be wrong, but wasn't there already a bootwait and nobootwait
defined for this behavior?
--
devel mailing list
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
to do so.
That behavior might be fine,
Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
than you: everything marked auto will be mounted at boot, and boot
will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
mounted (or things timed out). File systems marked as
On Mon, 23.08.10 12:23, David Michael (fedora@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
i.e. auto → wait for this on boot; noauto → don't delay boot for this.
I may be wrong, but wasn't there already a bootwait and nobootwait
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Mon, 23.08.10 12:23, David Michael (fedora@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
i.e. auto → wait for this on boot; noauto → don't delay boot
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
* fstab(5) documents the noauto option
Well, what it says is that noauto results in the -a option will not
cause the filesystem to be mounted. And that's still the case. We
execute either
On 08/23/2010 09:33 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
than you: everything marked auto will be mounted at boot, and boot
will not proceed until all devices listed as
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:38 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
And change it. The request was pretty clear.
-Mike
Try to stay friendly, maybe ?
Lennart said at the outset that he was open to change it.
And, while this discussion rages here, he has in fact already
implemented the requested
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 9:27 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:38 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
And change it. The request was pretty clear.
-Mike
Try to stay friendly, maybe ?
Lennart said at the outset that he was open to change it.
And, while this discussion rages here,
17 matches
Mail list logo
