On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 at 19:21:45 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 18:37 +0200, Guilhem Moulin wrote: >> Because the field is opaque, and the key=value list format might not >> make sense for keyscripts. > > Well sure you can define it that way... but with respect to the fstab- > like-format that makes simply not that much sense: > > fstab quite clearly assumes a format as described above.
I agree that fstab's *4th column* (option) does, and crypttab's *4th column* (option) follow the same format. AFAIK fstab itself makes no assumption on how the 1st field is formatted; like mount(8)'s ‘device’ argument its interpretation depends on the FS type. Looks pretty opaque to me. > Actually, if it would be opaque for keyscripts, as you say, then it > wouldn't perform any unencoding on it and: > CRYPTTAB_KEY == _CRYPTTAB_KEY No because the value may contain space and tabs which are used as field separator hence need to be escaped. For that field I see no need to use any other octal sequences other than these two. > Anyway... I guess that discussion is moot, Yeah, and frankly also rather tiring. > my whole point was whether we can get the raw variable exported? As said in msg#163, yes. -- Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
