>> In which way is it "safe and correct" to interrupt the boot in this case?
> In the way that missing some mounts may indicate a serious problem and
> could lead to incorrect behaviour or data loss.
Haven't heard many complaints about that over the years, so it shouldn't
be a super-top-priority goal, I think.
In any case, that's not incompatible with the desire to "boot enough for
remote maintenance to be possible".
> stopped when something important fails. You can configure things
> otherwise, but the default is to strictly obey dependencies.
To get the best of both worlds, I suggest that if a problem happens
during boot, systemd doesn't just interrupt the boot, but instead tries
to keep booting up to a "fallback/safe" state, so that maintenance can be
done conveniently over the network, instead of having to be done "on
console" which is all too often completely unworkable.
Stefan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
