On Fri, 12.09.14 15:25, Dale R. Worley (wor...@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com
Step back, and define exactly what it is you actually need^Wwant to do.
For a certain entry in /etc/fstab (which will in practice always have
the option
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com
That's not to say that it didn't happen to work most of the time. I
just hoped systemd could do better. I still do.
I agree that systemd's current default behavior is better than the
previous default. But there are some cases where
Hallo,
On 14 September 2014 19:49, Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com wrote:
В Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:53:27 +0200
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com пишет:
From my reading of the thread, this is to emulate as closely ye olde
initscripts' unreliable and flawed behaviour of
From: Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com
At least, it is impossible to achieve what the goal of OP was -
attempt to automount device exactly once on system boot and give up if
it was not successful. Which had been semantic of /etc/fstab for quite
some time.
I don't have a need to
В Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:32:20 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) пишет:
From: Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com
bor@opensuse:~/src/systemd systemctl show boot.mount -p WantedBy
--no-pager
WantedBy=dev-sda1.device
Which has the effect that if device was not present at boot
В Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:41:25 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) пишет:
From: Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie
I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
framework program mount(8)?
It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all
В Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:53:27 +0200
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com пишет:
Step back, and define exactly what it is you actually need^Wwant to do.
It was described clear enough already.
From my reading of the thread, this is to emulate as closely ye olde
initscripts'
From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com
Step back, and define exactly what it is you actually need^Wwant to do.
For a certain entry in /etc/fstab (which will in practice always have
the option nofail), if the device is not available until booting is
over (which I'm willing
Dale R. Worley wrote on 10/09/14 20:56:
From: Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com
What I was thinking of is, what is the program that reads (directly or
indirectly) the Store.mount file and from that decides exactly how to
call mount(8), and when to call it?
It's systemd itself (pid 1).
From: Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie
I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
framework program mount(8)?
It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all mounts
and then calling out to the appropriate, filesystem specific mount
program
Hallo,
On 11 September 2014 19:41, Dale R. Worley wor...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
From: Colin Guthrie gm...@colin.guthr.ie
I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
framework program mount(8)?
It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all
From: Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com
What I was thinking of is, what is the program that reads (directly or
indirectly) the Store.mount file and from that decides exactly how to
call mount(8), and when to call it?
It's systemd itself (pid 1).
My guess was that the name of this
From: Simon McVittie simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk
In my Store.mount file, I see no indication of an executable which
implements the unit.
I think it's always mount(8), which has its own extension mechanism to
dispatch per-filesystem if necessary (e.g. mount.cifs).
What I was thinking
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
From: Simon McVittie simon.mcvit...@collabora.co.uk
In my Store.mount file, I see no indication of an executable which
implements the unit.
I think it's always mount(8), which has its own extension mechanism to
On 04/09/14 23:32, Dale R. Worley wrote:
I admit that I haven't studied systemd enough to understand the
significance of WantedBy. My understanding is that systemd performs a
series of units, with dependencies showing which units must finish
before other units start.
Sort of. It has a goal
From: Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com
bor@opensuse:~/src/systemd systemctl show boot.mount -p WantedBy --no-pager
WantedBy=dev-sda1.device
Which has the effect that if device was not present at boot but appears
later, the very appearance of device triggers start of mount unit -
From: Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com
For fstab, the units are created by a 'generator'
(systemd-fstab-generator), which writes them under /run/systemd/generator
every time the configuration is reloaded.
I'm not at my PC right now so I cannot check, but I /do/ remember someone
From: Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com
Here's an interesting fact: What systemd does (in this situation)
isn't true automounting; rather it waits for the *first* time the
device/volume becomes available, and then mounts it. Any later
attachments of the volume do not cause
From: wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
When reading /etc/fstab a few special mount options are
understood by systemd which influence how dependencies are
created for mount points from /etc/fstab. [...] If
x-systemd.device-timeout= is specified it may be used
В Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:59:05 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) пишет:
From: wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
When reading /etc/fstab a few special mount options are
understood by systemd which influence how dependencies are
created for mount points from
From: Thomas Suckow thomas.suc...@pnnl.gov
From: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
Note that a concept of mount at boot if it is there, otherwise don't
cannot work.
It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
I'm sure you're right that in the abstract, it cannot
On Aug 27, 2014 10:03 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
From: Thomas Suckow thomas.suc...@pnnl.gov
From: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
Note that a concept of mount at boot if it is there, otherwise
don't
cannot work.
It worked until a week or two ago.
В Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:31:49 +0300
Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com пишет:
On Aug 27, 2014 10:03 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
From: Thomas Suckow thomas.suc...@pnnl.gov
From: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
Note that a concept of mount at boot if
From: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
Note that a concept of mount at boot if it is there, otherwise don't
cannot work.
It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
I'm sure you're right that in the abstract, it cannot be made to
work. But that isn't the problem I'm facing.
On 08/20/2014 06:46 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
Note that a concept of mount at boot if it is there, otherwise don't
cannot work.
It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
I'm sure you're right that in the abstract, it cannot be made
(This is more proper for a systemd-users mailing list, but I can't
find one.)
I'd like to customize my systemd. (I'm running Fedora Linux 19, with
systemd-204-20.fc19.x86_64.)
I have a line in /etc/fstab like this, which refers to a logical
volume on a USB storage device:
/dev/Freeze02/Store2
On Tue, 19.08.14 15:56, Dale R. Worley (wor...@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
(This is more proper for a systemd-users mailing list, but I can't
find one.)
I'd like to customize my systemd. (I'm running Fedora Linux 19, with
systemd-204-20.fc19.x86_64.)
I have a line in /etc/fstab like this,
27 matches
Mail list logo
