Mikkel L. Ellertson: >> Is there a difference in how mount handles things if the drive is >> missing if you use the LABEL= form? I know in the past, the system >> would not boot normally if you used the device form and the drive >> was not there. Patrick O'Callaghan: > It's a while since I've tried it without the LABEL= form. Remember that > Fedora now recommends using labels (since F7 I think). Since FC7, at least. I'm using them on a FC6 box, and I'm fairly certain that wasn't just because I felt like it. > With the LABEL= form I get: > > # umount /xtra > -- now turn off external drive > # mount /xtra > mount: special device LABEL=/xtra does not exist I'd expect labels to be better, too. But both ways return an immediate error then tried on the command line. If you're trying to mount a device, the OS expects that device to be there. If you try to mount a label, the OS is going to look through the currently available devices to see if it can find it. I wonder if the boot routines handle "drive doesn't exist" errors differently? -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
