-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:15:21 +0100 Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:23:45AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:53:34 +0100 > > Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > if also options are optional (hmmmm... *options* are *optional*... > > > makes some sense) then the following trivial patch will fix the > > > error. > > > > It is my understanding that Erik wants to lean on specs, rather than > > woodoo. I pointed out earlier (in this or one of the other > > bugreports?) to the manpage of fstab that says that "fourth field > > [..] contains at least the type of mount". > > > > Those mount points you have on your system - should they be mounted > > rw or ro? > > rw. mount does the right thing, I'd say it applies the defaults it > nothing is specified I did not ask how mount parses a broken fstab. I asked what was _intended_ with such line in an fstab. It seems to me that it is undefined how such mountpoints should (according to fstab () ) be mounted. Erik can off course choose to mimic current undecoumented behaviour of mount, but still I believe it is undocumented. Please if persisting then point to documentation backing up your arguments. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDZ2bUn7DbMsAkQLgRAnNDAKCTr2laK3vlsVJbE2tKEy32Jsr9xACgi1Pk nsk1eZDbWqbs94LG0rO8/0Q= =kEu2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
