Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2019-04-30 Thread Franck Bui
On 4/30/19 11:44 AM, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am Di., 30. Apr. 2019 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Franck Bui : >> Just in case, this "feature" has been finally removed since v242 (commit >> 42b8142d7). > > I can't find a commit with that id > https://github.com/systemd/

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2019-04-30 Thread Franck Bui
On 1/23/18 3:47 PM, Franck Bui wrote: > Hi, > > I'm resurrecting an old but recurrent issue here which I'd like to > clarify one more time. > > Basically, systemd mounts all filesystems listed in /etc/fstab (unless > "noauto" is used) which is good since that's

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] detect-virt: do not return exit failure code when the state is none

2018-05-25 Thread Franck Bui
Hi Joey, On 05/25/2018 09:33 AM, joeyli wrote: > > Do you have good idea to inhibit the exit failure to avoid the subsequent > activity be blocked? > For the context the actual rule is: SUBSYSTEM=="memory", ACTION=="add", PROGRAM=="/usr/bin/systemd-detect-virt", RESULT!="zvm", ... You can

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2018-02-12 Thread Franck Bui
On 01/31/2018 10:15 AM, Franck Bui wrote: > On 01/24/2018 04:33 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> I am not convinced the reasoning is convincing for such a major change >> (I mean, let's not forget that systemd's current behaviour has been >> around for more than half a decade

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2018-01-31 Thread Franck Bui
On 01/24/2018 04:33 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I am not convinced the reasoning is convincing for such a major change > (I mean, let's not forget that systemd's current behaviour has been > around for more than half a decade too already). If you want other > bits of the code not to interfere

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2018-01-26 Thread Franck Bui
On 01/25/2018 06:33 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote: > > This would require distinguishing "boot" and "non-boot" modes of > operation, so that systemd could switch mount handling behavior at some > point. How would you define where "boot" ends? Well "during boot" means mount units pulled in by

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2018-01-25 Thread Franck Bui
On 01/25/2018 02:27 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote: >> Initially "noauto" is interpreted only (?) by "mount -a" which was done >> during boot and can still be re-played later by admin. But in the later >> case the command is *initiated* by him so there's no magic here. >> >> systemd redefined this

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2018-01-25 Thread Franck Bui
On 01/24/2018 04:33 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> Furthermore, it complicates the disk administrative tasks because now >> one needs to be careful when it creates and initialize partitions >> because systemd can mount the partition on the back of the user. We >> recently had one such bug report

[systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

2018-01-23 Thread Franck Bui
Hi, I'm resurrecting an old but recurrent issue here which I'd like to clarify one more time. Basically, systemd mounts all filesystems listed in /etc/fstab (unless "noauto" is used) which is good since that's how fstab was used when SysV was the init system. However it also introduced another

[systemd-devel] Status of "presets override sysadmin's choices"

2016-11-28 Thread Franck Bui
Hi, I'm resurrecting this subject because it seems that some works happened around this issue but it seems to have been lost somehow. The latest work I found is the "preset-transient" one [1], which is in my understanding about having symlinks created by the preset commands in /run/systemd/ thus

Re: [systemd-devel] Systemd loads units before btrfs subvolumes are mounted

2016-05-26 Thread Franck Bui
On 05/25/2016 05:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 24.05.16 22:21, Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty > (rashmiranjan.moha...@microfocus.com) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Our whole software is installed into /opt. So the systemd unit files >> are also there in /opt and the units are enabled to start on

[systemd-devel] What if I start a unit requiring a masked unit ? (issue #2315)

2016-01-18 Thread Franck Bui
Hi, I initially opened an issue in order to get feedback on the desired behaviour but I'm reposting here in order to get a wider audience. Here's the question: How systemd should behave when starting a unit that requires a masked unit ? Currently it just accepts to do so but prior to v219 it