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.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part