On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 11:41:58PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 21:56 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:13:25PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> >
>> > I wonder why we offer to mount /boot but not /usr (more and more
>> > programs live there), /var (some of them might need state there) or
>> > /tmp (don't want to create files there that will never be cleaned
>> > up).
>>
>> Maybe, yes. For now I've made the code here much more generic to make
>> it easier to ask about other filesystems, and added a check for
>> /boot/efi too.
>>
>> > Also, does the question about mounting /boot really merit critical
>> > priority? Is 'yes' not a good default?
>>
>> *If* the /boot fs is broken, attempting to auto-mount is probably not
>> a good plan.
>
>That's true. Perhaps the sensible thing is perhaps to mount /usr and
>the virtual filesystems unconditionally, and then ask whether to mount
>all the other local filesystem ('mount -a -O no_network').
How are /usr and any other disk-based filesystems likely to be any
different to /boot here?
I'd agree about the virtual fsen...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
< liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
