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

Bug#925552: release-notes: document problems with hidepid vs Buster systemd



On Sb, 20 apr 19, 18:40:17, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Justin B Rye wrote:
> >> The "hidepid" mount-options for /proc (as recommended by various
> > 
> > Why plural? Both the wiki and proc(5) are using singular.
> 
> You're right - I was thinking of "hidepid=0/1/2" as separate options,
> but yes, the approved terminology is to call it one option with
> multiple possible arguments.  I suppose I could argue that it's 
> only the non-zero arguments that cause problems rather than the 
> hidepid option itself, but no, here's a patch making it singular.

:)

> diff --git a/en/issues.dbk b/en/issues.dbk
> index 39d27b25..81ed5863 100644
> --- a/en/issues.dbk
> +++ b/en/issues.dbk
> @@ -41,15 +41,15 @@ information mentioned in <xref linkend="morereading"/>.
>  
>    <section id="hidepid-unsupported">
>      <!-- stretch to buster-->
> -    <title>Hidepid mount options for procfs unsupported</title>
> +    <title>Hidepid mount option for procfs unsupported</title>
>      <para>
> -      The <literal>hidepid</literal> mount options for
> -      <filename>/proc</filename> are known to cause problems with current
> -      versions of systemd, and are considered by systemd upstream to be an
> +      Using the <literal>hidepid</literal> mount option for
> +      <filename>/proc</filename> is known to cause problems with current
> +      versions of systemd, and is considered by systemd upstream to be an
>        unsupported configuration. Users who have modified
> -      <filename>/etc/fstab</filename> to enable these options are advised to
> -      disable them before the upgrade, to ensure login sessions work on
> -      &releasename;. (A possible route to re-enabling them is outlined on the
> +      <filename>/etc/fstab</filename> to enable this option are advised to
> +      disable it before the upgrade, to ensure login sessions work on
> +      &releasename;. (A possible route to re-enabling it is outlined on the

Any particular reason for using "&releasename;" instead of "buster"?

At least for me it's easier to read (and understand) the source text 
without so much markup.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: