On Wed, 02.11.11 15:19, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > I guess, if such broken configs should be supported, which I'm really > > > not sure about, fsck itself should be made to find that out and return > > > successful without doing anything. Such things should not be guarded > > > in systemd with just another static blacklist. > > > > I agree here, I think such a blacklist should not be copied from > > fsck. The issue should be fixed in util-linux I guess, not in systemd. > > > > Karel, can we convince you to add an option for fsck that checks the > > existing blacklists, much like -a would do it? Than wed simply pass that > > option when invoking fsck and everything would be fine. > > I think we can use the blacklist always, add a new option seems like > overkill. If the list makes sense for -a then the same list should > be usable for non-all mode too.
Awesome, that's great. Then we can leave systemd unmodified, that's always the best solution ;-) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
