Bzzzz wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > What practical alternative suggestion do you have in response? > > First, try to understand why fsck has failed; is it > "just a small error"?, may be due to a power failure, > or is it a big failure? may be due to the HD falling > apart. > What exactly failed, etc.
Okay. That is constructive. Let's assume it was a power failure
causing a dirty file system. It needs an fsck in order to be clean
for the mount.
> Erasing error output just doesn't erase the cause,
> and the cause might be very dangerous to the system's
> health…
Erasing the error output? Why are you erasing error output? I never
suggested any such thing.
> This also means more frequent FS checks ("I'm waiting
> for hours fsck to complete" IS NOT a good excuse).
Huh? What? Huh? What are you talking about? I suggested setting
FSCKFIX=yes and that most certainly has nothing to do with long fsck
check times nor with more frequent checks. Why did you suggest that?
> Now, if you think your way's the best, keep on going to the bottom
> of it, and just replace fsck with an empty script that always
> returns 1.
That is a classic "straw man" fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Somehow you have mutated my suggestion of fixing the problem with
ignoring the problem. Ignoring is very, very bad. Why would you even
suggest ignoring the problem? I know I didn't suggest ignoring the
problem.
I suggest setting FSCKFIX=yes so that the problem of a dirty file
system at boot time will be attempted to be fixed automatically. That
is very far away from your suggestion to ignore it.
Sorry but I think you have taken this discussion off into the weeds.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
