On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Tue, 01.10.13 04:19, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > >> > I'd love to get rid of FsckPassNo=, but I fear that's not that >> > easy... After all it's not just a boolean, it actually influences the >> > ordering of the fsck. There traditionally were two documented phases >> > which you could use to serialize multiple fsck on the same HDD >> > but different partitions, but parallelize it on different HDDs. Now, >> > fsck since a while can determine all that automatically these days. But >> > still by using FsckPassNo= you get ordering deps automatically added. >> > >> > a) leave everything as is and FsckPassNo= does odering deps >> > >> > b) declare that manual passno configuration is stupid beyond treating it >> > as simple boolean. In thatc ase we should drop all references of >> > passno in the sources. Of course people might complain that we break >> > compat with UNIX, but well... >> > >> > c) Pimp up fstab-generator to write complete unit files for >> > fsck@.service that include the right dependencies. Meh. >> > >> > d) Pimp up fstab-generator to write only .d dropins that add the >> > necessary deps between the fsck instances, but nothing else. >> > >> > I think c) and a) suck. b) sounds like the best option to me. d) sounds >> > workable too. >> > >> > If we go for b) then I figure people might complain that fstab(5) is not >> > longer compatible with what systemd does? >> >> b) is tempting. Given fsck's improved internal ordering handling, is >> there actually a usecase for ordering the fsck's? I can't think of any >> off the top of my head... > > I struggle coming up with one. I mean, the only I could think of is "oh > my, it always used to work that way, and it is documented that way, you > break UNIX!", which isn't even a usecase, but just confusion. > > I have the suspicion that if we remove support for it, and don't tell > anyone nobody might actually notice. > > So maybe we should just go ahead and change it to become a boolean only, > and not tell anyone, and that's it? Opinions?
Things like that should probably just be automatically determined by the machine, and not requiring a human to invent weird passes to do the job. A boolean sounds fine to me. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
