On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:00:40 -0400 Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 12:55:11PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > halt the boot > > process (i.e. host is inaccessible by network, console access only) > > even if a single filesystem mentioned in fstab fails to mount. > > This was the traditional behavior before systemd, so one can't really > fault systemd for continuing the practice. > > It's assumed that all file systems mentioned in /etc/fstab are > essential to the correct operation of the system (unless otherwise > specified). If one of them doesn't mount, it means a disk is broken > to the point where human intervention is required, so the operating > system decides to play it safe and not continue. > So when I switched my unstable installation from sysvinit to systemd and it subsequently failed to boot because of a missing drive, that was just coincidence, was it? My system had never been booting and for some reason I'd never noticed? OK, naming removable drives in /etc/fstab may not have been best practice, but it never held up booting before systemd arrived. But to be fair, consistent mounting of USB media was a shambles before systemd, and naming USB drives in fstab was the only way to ensure that it happened reliably. Remember usbmount and other bodges? -- Joe
