[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1033630: marked as done (debian-installer: should fstab swap entries use "sw" as option?)

Your message dated Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:46:30 +0200
with message-id <20230329134630.i4aujqd3rhelsnsk@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1033630: debian-installer: should fstab swap entries use "sw" as option?
has caused the Debian Bug report #1033630,
regarding debian-installer: should fstab swap entries use "sw" as option?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1033630: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033630
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: debian-installer
Version: 20230217
Severity: minor


Hey.

In the end this is probably anyway completely ignored, so consider this
just a cosmetic issue:


AFAICS, the installer cretes swap entries in fstab as:
<swap-device/file> none swap sw 0 0

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-basicfilesystems/-/blob/master/fstab.d/basic#L32
and also at least there:
https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/partman-swapfile/-/blob/master/finish.d/fstab_swapfile#L10

I wondered whether "sw" is still the "canonical" value for the 4th field.

fstab(5) describes the appropriate values for swap for fields 1 to 3
(inclusive).
But it gives nothing about the 4th.
Neither do e.g. the manpages mount(8) or swapon(8).

I briefly tried to track down where the "sw" actually came from, seems
it might be from BDS times?


Anyway... maybe it makes sense to use some other value, most likely
"defaults" then... or perhaps "auto,nouser"?
"defaults" would be a bit misleading as its documented to be:
       defaults
           use default options: rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, nouser, and async.
which most make no sense for swap.
So perhaps "auto,nouser" would be the most reasonable ones?


Alternatively, this should perhaps be reassigned to mount, with the request
that "sw" is documented somehow, and if it's just that it's ignored for
entries of type swap.
Sidenote: It doesn't seem as if the 4th field would be generally ignored
for swap, e.g. nofail, noauto are considered.


Cheers,
Chris.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.org> (2023-03-29):
> 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.

Closing as not a bug. If you want an actual bug to get fixed, please
file a specific bug report, describing what's not working correctly.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: