[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPXgP11f_SicmxSZ1Bb5JmM4krPyNL-rXNJ6rJ2BHrNvA8LzRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:20:56 +0100
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
Cc: Attila Kinali <attila@...ali.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, util-linux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: /etc/fstab.d yes or not
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 15:59, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:43:09PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote:
>> Hence, i would like to ask you to consider not adding /etc/fstab.d
>> unless there is a very good reason to do it. And "to make it simpler
>> for people who have a lot of mountpoints" is IMHO not a good reason.
>> How many mountpoints must one use that a single file becomes a problem?
>
> Let's imagine that you have a network and you use the same configuration
> on all machines, then "*.d/" directories are very useful for you -- for
> example you can create a company.rpm with important configuration and
> distribute it to all machines.
Yeah, and all tools which read /etc/fstab with the glibc interface, to
find out the properties for the mount point, are just broken now. And
for what gain. Put a script in you RPM that merges your snippets into
the one fstab, and you get the same behaviour without any breakage.
Always remember, /etc/fstab is ABI, not a private config file, you
need a _very_ good reason to break it.
And you usually have not much problems convincing me that breakage is
justified. I just totally fail to see the benefit vs. gain in this
case.
Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists