On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> though they may very well just keep chugging on, >> pretending all is well. > > Very last post on systemd as you've said this before and I chose not to > respond. > > No, they will throw a decriptive or general error and do what the script > author intended which could be sub routines, traps which could be ask > the user anything and ^C may work too. You see this as a good thing? Was > systemd intended to just stop without a prompt? i don't at all understand what you're trying to say/insinuate here? systemd will indeed drop to a prompt if the problem is critical (though i'm admittedly not 100% sure where that boundary lies, i think if `basic.target` isn't reached or something ...), but it has an rather long timeout that could easy lead a user into thinking it's "stuck" (something obnoxious like 5 minutes IIRC). at any rate, i'm pretty sure a failing mount only blocks boot if it's a system/api mountpoint ... i had a bad fstab at one point and i don't recall any serious issue, which is why the OP needs to provide more information. initscripts != sysvinit. there are no sufficiently unique requirements across distributions to warrant each one writing near 100% custom boot routines -- we all boot pretty much the same way. -- C Anthony
