On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 21:56 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 09:13:25PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > I wonder why we offer to mount /boot but not /usr (more and more
> > programs live there), /var (some of them might need state there) or
> > /tmp (don't want to create files there that will never be cleaned
> > up).
>
> Maybe, yes. For now I've made the code here much more generic to make
> it easier to ask about other filesystems, and added a check for
> /boot/efi too.
>
> > Also, does the question about mounting /boot really merit critical
> > priority? Is 'yes' not a good default?
>
> *If* the /boot fs is broken, attempting to auto-mount is probably not
> a good plan.
That's true. Perhaps the sensible thing is perhaps to mount /usr and
the virtual filesystems unconditionally, and then ask whether to mount
all the other local filesystem ('mount -a -O no_network').
Ben.
> This is about the only sensible way to allow people to
> control that, I guess.
>
--
Ben Hutchings
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part