Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (856 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] interesting reading about systemd
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
Follow Ups