On 10/03/2016 09:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2016-10-03 15:22, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 10/03/2016 08:54 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Carlos E. R. <> wrote:
If you don't like that, then remove the relevant entry from /etc/fstab and create your own unit file specific to that disk.
Absolutely not nice, and an argument against systemd.
Not so! The generator is a 'backwards compatibility' compromise. if you have up on that backwards comparability and worked exclusively with properly written mount unit files then you would have proper control and control over aspects that you currently don't have at the moment since the generator produces all mounts according to a simplistic standardized template as it parses the /etc/fstab. That systemd keeps monitoring the state of the system, including what is mounted, and tries to keep it stable, is, to my mind, a Good Thing. As far as systemd is concerned, you were trying to destabilise the system by taking away a mounted file system without telling it, without saying that it should now be released. The problem is the mount command. As I've said previously, the suite of what makes up systemd is only advancing as fast as matters can be coded and ratified. Right now, the 'umount' command *OUGHT* to check to see if the FS is managed by systemd and it it is send a D-Bus message to systemd telling it to unmount. Quite possibly the 'mount' command might dynamically generate a unit file and tell systemd to mount it accordingly. Richard, what do you think? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org