On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:52:46PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 03:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Ben Hutchings <email@example.com> writes: > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:57:18PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > >> rleigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > [...] > > >> > tmpfs filesystems are different; here they /do/ differ in the sense that > > >> > /run, /run/lock, /lib/init/rw etc. /are/ separate unique instances of > > >> > tmpfs. Here, it might make sense to give them a name other than "none" > > >> > or "tmpfs" in order to distinguish between them--that is to say, the > > >> > tmpfs instance, rather than the mountpoint. So names such as "run", > > >> > "runlock", would provide a unique key for /etc/fstab in addition to the > > >> > mountpoint. But this is mostly cosmetic, and if we do make such a > > >> > change we'll need to ensure that it's coordinated between initscripts > > >> > and initramfs-tools. > > >> > > >> It really doesn't matter what it is as long as it is consitent. Given > > >> that /run and /run/lock aren't yet in use in Debian now would be the > > >> time to pick a name and then stick with it. Using "run" and "runlock" > > >> sounds good, go with that. > > > [...] > > > > > > It does matter, as this is not just a matter for initramfs-tools and > > > initscripts. We also need to agree with systemd and that is cross- > > > distribution. > > > > > > Ben. > > > > So what is everyone else using? > > systemd version 25 appears to set name equal to type for all virtual > filesystems: This matches what initscripts and everything else is now doing, so from that POV this is a good thing. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Description: Digital signature