On Dec 30, 2007 8:01 PM, David Zeuthen <davidz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The comment option is not exactly new: man 5 fstab I meant instead of using a specific comment string to mean hide versus some pre-existing option that would be interpreted as unhide if present. noauto has been suggested by others. But I'm sure you are right the comment option makes more sense. Can you have multiple comment options defined? > > I would have thought anything listed in fstab would be preferred to > > be hidable in the general case. > > Then you'd just get complaints from people who disagree with that. > Everyone's a critic. Sorry I meant, hide by default, and use an fstab option to unhide for specific entries you don't want hidden. The question was meant as which makes the best default policy with respect to fstab entries. Opt-out of hide or Opt-in of hide. Naively, I would think it would think hiding all fstab entries by default and using an option to unhide would be the more prominent desire. We are talking about manually added entries so it's probably a coin flip in reality. I'm not going to press the point. If comment=hide does end up being the syntax to hide, would it be possible to add boilerplate to the fstab file generated at fedora install time to indicate that option can be used to hide partitions in addition to updating the fstab manpage? It might save a lot of additional discussion if admins going into fstab for manual editting see a simple boilerplate notice annoucing the new comment=hide parsing. -jef -- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
