From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120120145907.GA20377@x2.net.home> References: <20120120140444.GC13157@x2.net.home> <20120120154309.3ae5f9e4a8f55c477dc423ab@kinali.ch> <20120120145907.GA20377@x2.net.home> From: Kay Sievers Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:20:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: /etc/fstab.d yes or not To: Karel Zak Cc: Attila Kinali , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, util-linux@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 15:59, Karel Zak wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:43:09PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote: >> Hence, i would like to ask you to consider not adding /etc/fstab.d >> unless there is a very good reason to do it. And "to make it simpler >> for people who have a lot of mountpoints" is IMHO not a good reason. >> How many mountpoints must one use that a single file becomes a problem? > >  Let's imagine that you have a network and you use the same configuration >  on all machines, then "*.d/" directories are very useful for you -- for >  example you can create a company.rpm with important configuration and >  distribute it to all machines. Yeah, and all tools which read /etc/fstab with the glibc interface, to find out the properties for the mount point, are just broken now. And for what gain. Put a script in you RPM that merges your snippets into the one fstab, and you get the same behaviour without any breakage. Always remember, /etc/fstab is ABI, not a private config file, you need a _very_ good reason to break it. And you usually have not much problems convincing me that breakage is justified. I just totally fail to see the benefit vs. gain in this case. Kay