From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4F1DF90C.5070108@panasas.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:19:24 +0200 From: Boaz Harrosh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kay Sievers CC: Masatake YAMATO , , , , Subject: Re: /etc/fstab.d yes or not References: <20120120140444.GC13157@x2.net.home> <20120120.232002.849876084731555262.yamato@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/20/2012 04:56 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: > > It's an old glibc API, and /etc/fstab is ABI, not a service config > file, which now can read more than one file. It's a very different > problem. It an ABI change, not a config extension. > Can't we have our cake and eat it too? I mean why not have both? The subsystem that you currently plan to parse the /etc/fstab.d/ will intelligently add the /etc/fstab.d/ entries to /etc/fstab before actually processing and mounting /etc/fstab. So the rpm guys have their /etc/fstab.d/ convenience and the rest of the ABI is kept intact. (If you can't bit them join them) Since /etc/fstab is hand edited as well. There are lots of smart things that can be done like a remark (#) marker at the end of the file that all /etc/fstab.d/ entries get to be added after. (And a comment for the user) and some smart duplicate removal of, and so on ... Even a marker per line added. Just my $0,017 Boaz