Bug#1033630: debian-installer: should fstab swap entries use "sw" as option?
On Wed, 2023-03-29 at 03:38 +0000, David wrote:
> I think the formal specification of the fstab format would be
> 'man 3 getfsent' because that is the canonical method to
> parse /etc/fstab.
Uhm, but that doesn't really describe which fields are necessary
either. So it would be the actual code which would be the definition...
but that's typically a bad idea to use as a standard.
Nevertheless, getfsent(3) still mentions "sw" and even "xx" and "rq".
> Perhaps 'sw' in field 4 became obsolete. What does it achieve?
>
> It does seem redundant to have to specify both 'swap' and 'sw'
> for every swap partition. And if we have to specify 'sw' in field 4,
> how is it an "option"?
Well I guess it's an indication for the 4th field *not* being optional
and "defaults" not being considered (or even present back in BSD) for
swap.
> Anyway, just to be clear, I'm not the person advocating change here.
Sure, me neither. :-)
Just trying to find out what would be the "best" value (from a cosmetic
PoV).
For that purpose I posted at util-linux mailing list, asking for their
opinion and whether fstab(5) could be clarified accordingly:
https://lore.kernel.org/util-linux/45fc7a385b006d734011a11487fbfdda4333644e.camel@christoph.anton.mitterer.name/T/#u
I think this issue here can be put on hold, until things have been
clarified there.
> I am simply sharing the fact that I have configured swap in
> /etc/fstab
> with blank field 4,5 and 6, as I showed previously, for as long as I
> can
> remember, without experiencing any problem. And I have explained
> my reasoning about that, when requested.
Sure,.. but for that purpose, "sw" could be simply kept either (it also
works). :-)
This issue was really just from the cosmetic PoV, about what is
considered to be the "canonical" way of doing it (if there's any).
Thanks,
Chris.
Reply to: