On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > i think this would be a good idea > > PHP (my main language) is fighting with traling slash or not troubles > over all the years, but there is nothing to stop the boot-process and > systemd is a very different level of software Let's be clear...the bug was actually in mount...not systemd. And the fix has been committed for the mount binary according the bug ticket against the utils-linux package. So the problem has been solved very quickly after the _correct_ developers were notified via the established bug tracking mechanism. And its a weird bug for mount...not what I would have expected. Simple test outside of systemd for everyone falling along using a ntfs disk I just happened to have. First using an entry like this without a slash /dev/sdb1 /mnt ntfs defaults 0 0 mount /mnt and mount /mnt/ both work and the drive mounts Second using an entry like this with a slash /dev/sdb1 /mnt/ ntfs defaults 0 0 mount /mnt fails to mount with an error and mount /mnt/ succeeds What my very simple test shows is that this is totally inconsistent behavior on the part of mount in handling trailing slashes or the lack thereof. There's no good reason why that 1 failure should be happening especially when clearly the mount binary is internally manipulating trailing slashes in some cases. If it wasn't then I should have gotten a failure in the first case. Reindi, If you want to be passionate and be upset about system breakage, that is absolutely your right to do so. But I caution you that you are not channeling your passion effectively. I hope in the future you budget some time as a volunteer to be involved in the pre-release testing so you can help catch problems prior to release. I also hope you learn to be less aggressive when discussing issues with people with whom you don't have an established working relationship. And please, avoid prejudicing a new component of the software stack when things like this happen. New code typically does a better job at tickling implicit assumptions than experienced sysadmins and testers. In this case, mount is broken, and has been broken for years, and we've all been living with that brokenness and not realizing it because we've conditioned ourselves to interact with mount in a way that avoids the breakage. Please, lay the blame at the feet of the correct piece of software. In this case the mount binary is behaving inconsistently and has undocumented quirks that have gone unfixed for YEARS until this bug was filed and fixed. FIXED...I can't stress that enough...the fix has already been committed and we are just waiting for packages now. All systemd was doing was breaking an _undocumented_ _implicit_ _assumption_ that the mount command was using to map mount cmdline mountpoints to fstab entry mountpoints. Mount was assuming that when an fstab entry had a trailing slash then the mount cmdline mntpoint argument would also have a trailing slash and mount was failing when the trailing slash was missing in the cmdline argument. Is there a good reason for mount to do this? I can't think of one so far noone has defended mount's behavior in this regard. And as far as I know its not a documented behavior of mount. And since its not documented there was no reason that anyone (including the systemd authors) could know that stripping the trailing slash when parsing the fstab entry would cause mount to fail. Doubly so when the slash is missing mount processes cmndline mountpoints with trailing slashes without issue. Undocumented implicit assumptions are _bugs_ that cause all sorts of problem up and down the software stack. Spending days and days and days complaining about the piece of software that runs into such an implicit assumption is not the way to work through the problem. Identifying the software with the implicit assumption and either getting it documented or fixed to behave in a consistent, programmatic, robust manner is _always_ the proper way forward. This will be my last response to you on any of these threads. And while I understand why you are upset, and I respect your right to be upset over this issue, I am extremely disappointed in the choices you have made in expressing your opinions on the matter. I will not reward you further with interaction and attention until such time that its clear that you've learned how to tempter your emotion and can approach discussion over problems with more humility and less aggression. Good day, -jef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
