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 (in fact specifying 'defaults' or nothing doesn't change the thing), it reports: sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw) /dev/hda5 on /mnt/tmp0 type reiser4 (rw) -- mattia :wq!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
