-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 29/09/15 10:52 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 29/09/2015 16:29, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 28/09/15 06:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> Also, we are dropping the use of the -O switch for
>>> mount/umount -a. This is being dropped because it is
>>> util-linux specific and not compatible with busybox.
>> 
>> Does this have any actual end-user impact?  AFAIK, using the
>> -O switch was 'just added' by us originally (i think to reduce
>> the explicit listing of the different fs types or otherwise
>> simplify the init script code) right?  I'm just wondering if
>> this paragraph is actually necessary or not..
> 
> As a user, that para in the news makes me ask "how does this
> affect me?". I have to go read man pages and init scripts to find
> out.
> 
> Perhaps this:
> 
> Also, we are dropping the use of the -O switch for mount/umount
> -a, because it is util-linux specific and not compatible with
> busybox. This only affects mounts with "_netdev" listed under
> options in /etc/fstab. Such systems should use "noauto" and/or
> "nofail" as described above.
> 

Exactly my thoughts.  We used -O _netdev within the 'netmount'
script to identify which fstab entries are network mounts.  But we
did it a different way prior to using -O _netdev.  And since this
isn't actually related in any way to something end-users can set in
fstab (it has to do with the filesystem type itself) I don't see the
point in worrying end-users about it.

I suppose it's worthwhile to note to busybox users that they no
longer have to use alternate means of netmounting, as 'netmount'
will now work on busybox...?

Perhaps:
"
Also, we are dropping the use of the -O switch for mount/umount -a,
to ensure the localmount and netmount scripts are compatible with
busybox mount.  If your system uses busybox mount please migrate any
custom workarounds you may have to the openrc localmount/netmount
services.
"





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYKqe0ACgkQAJxUfCtlWe3v2AD+KNkWk/3lIVa1ws32lPUiP35s
o4GpzFpnUqTuNAlyacgBALpbk3DEBwU6RlRLM8v5xse+4Hd7yOixbisPavoeMzgh
=vuxq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to