On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 13:59 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > 1. The latest git commit in util-linux now has a fix for umount not > remounting the root fs read only with a 'umount -a -r' command. > > I'm not sure if we should fix that in LFS or just wait until the next > release of util-linux. We do have a workaround in place in the mountfs > script, and it's a pretty minor issue right now. My inclination is to wait.
I'd be inclined to wait as well. From the discussion I saw, the issue itself was fairly minor, and as you say has already been addressed. > 2. Also, I did a test of setting /etc/mtab as a symlink to /proc/mounts > and it seems to work properly although the output of 'mount' is a bit > more verbose. My objection of 'mount' not specifying the device for the > rootfs is fixed. I think this is done by reading the root= option on > the kernel command line, so it may not work exactly right in all cases. > For instance, it may not work if an initramfs is used and the root fs > is specified by uuid or label. I have a feeling it'll still work if an initramfs is used. See the thread at http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.utilities.util-linux-ng/6718 where, half-way down Kay Sievers shows util-linux behaving correctly on an initramfs-based system. > In any case, should we change the /etc/mtab entry to a symlink? It'd make the systemd branch merge slightly easier, as we already have it as a symlink over there :-) Seriously though, I think it should be a symlink. A number of advantages of doing so are at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=494001 and whilst I don't think the majority are applicable to a base LFS system, if any of our users want to use features such as disk quotas, or user namespaces, then it'd be nice if this simple issue didn't get in their way. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
