Re: /etc/fstab.d yes or not

[Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 06:59:47PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > Inventing custom file formats for these (as is the current situation)
> > is both opaque to the admin and less amenable to preservation/upgrading
> > of the admins customisations and the defaults.
> 
> I'm not talking about custom file formats, better just add a mount -c,
> and do mount -c /etc/kernelfs.d/*.conf, or whatever will fit systemv
> needs.

 This is planned (I talked about it on dracut list few months ago). It
 means:

    mount --fstab=<path> /mountpoint

 to override the default /etc/fstab path. The <path> could be also a
 directory. So you can maintain our mountpoints in multiple files and
 mount(8) will be able to search in the files if --fstab=<path> is
 explicitly specified. I think this should be enough for initramfs
 scripts.

 The problem is that the configuration won't be visible if
 --fstab is not specified -- this is possible to resolve probably
 by regular /etc/fstab.d only ;-)

> This is nothing really to share between systemd and systemv here. This
> problem just does not exist for systemd.

 Well, Masatake has RHEL customers who want to deploy systems with
 rpm/yum, %post scripts are poor solution because it's not too
 reliable and verification with rpm -V doesn't work. Do we have any
 answer for this use case?

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html