On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:05 AM Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, Stephan Kulow wrote:
That's not an answer to Ancor's question though. That systems change and people that want to administrate need to be willing to learn is not the point here. The question is: what's so bad about having a simple format to configure and learn about?
Nothing, as long as it fullfills your needs.
I.e. what are the actual benefits of going away? Because it's old? That's not an argument you can convince people with in my opinion.
With "it's old" only you are right. But "simple format" could be one ;) E.g. Product Management is requesting since years the feature, that you can take a snapshot across partition and filesystem boundaries and that you can do a rollback to it. Seems like ZFS is able to do so. Several people looked at this. In the end, for the rollback support, everybody stumbled about /etc/fstab not able to provide what's needed. I think with systemd mount units, this would be possible. This would be for me a very good argument for systemd mount units against /etc/fstab.
But no, I'm not working on that and I don't request to replace /etc/fstab because of this.
This problem is actually one of the reasons why I haven't yet implemented an automatic snapshot and restore scheme in Fedora. It's very messy to handle that right now. Combined with the fact that we're trying to use the bootloader spec as a bootloader-independent way to generate boot manager entries, all existing solutions for this stuff don't work. It's unfortunate, but fstab(5) is not expressive enough to handle all the problems we need to solve. But for now, I just haven't bothered to deal with it because we don't need it yet. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org