On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 04:38:59PM -0700, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 08/03/2015 12:47 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 00:22:42 -0700 "Daniel Campbell (zlg)" > > <z...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I'm having a hard time understanding why we need daemons to > >> handle our filesystems. Can you give me a use case that > >> /etc/fstab is insufficient for solving? > > > >> - -- Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer > > > > > > It is about defining proper dependencies and not blindly returning > > a success result when there were actual failures to start some > > files systems. So in some ways it is a bugfix. But it is actually > > a re-design which will overcome shortcomings/limitations in the > > fstab, netmount, localmount designs. > > > > Net result should be better configurability, proper error > > reporting, proper service order startup,... > > > > Downside, it will likely mean a little migration/transistion. > > > > I'm in favour of the change. Good work William. > > > > > I'm okay with a change as long as it's relatively manageable and > offers some real benefits. If I understand correctly, this new > mounting will allow us to declare mounting dependencies the same way > we declare service/daemon dependencies, correct? > > So say I want to have an ownCloud instance that provides a single /usr > or /etc for any Gentoo system that wants it on my local network. Is > that a use case that would benefit from this new mounting? I'm just > trying to understand which use cases benefit and why, and what it is > that fstab isn't good enough for right now. As a developer, I want to > be able to support users on this if/when it hits mainline OpenRC.
fstab is *not* going anywhere. The difference right now is that you just have two services that control all file system mounts and imo do a bad job of it. ;-) netmount and localmount always succeed, regardless of whether anything they mount fails. Under the new system, you will have services like mount.home, mount.usr, mount.var etc, which will actually be able to report failure if they do not mount their file systems. localmount and netmount will be kept, for now, but you will have to configure them to have dependencies like rc_need="mount.foo mount.bar mount.bas" etc, depending on which file systems are local or network. These versions of localmount and netmount will also change behaviours, because they will be able to fail if a filesystem they need fails to mount. Does that make sense? William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
