On Tue, 30.05.17 11:15, Michael Biebl (mbiebl@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > 2017-05-30 10:55 GMT+02:00 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, May 30 2017, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > >> 2017-05-30 0:19 GMT+02:00 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>: > >> > >>> +.B bg > >>> +option is not supported, and may be stripped from the option list. > >> > >> Either systemd is updated to actually strip the bg option or not. The > >> documentation should reflect that. > >> I don't think we should be vague about this, as it would only be confusing. > > > > It depends on which version of systemd is in use. > > Even if/when systemd is updated to strip the 'bg', it would not > > be correct to say "and will be stripped..." as that isn't true for all > > versions. > > We could spell it out "and may be stripped from the option list, > > depending on which version of systemd is installed", but I'm not sure > > that really helps... > > "... and some versions of systemd will strip 'bg' from the option list" > > ?? > > So far, no version of systemd strips bg from the option list. > If in version X systemd actually starts stripping bg, we should > explicitly mention that version in the man page imho. I figure it's up to the NFS folks to decide on this, but if I were them I would not mention any version numbers. That just gets out of date. Instead, document the new behaviour and indicate in the README file that the documentation assumes systemd with a certain version is used, and then let the packers figure out the rest, i.e. if they want to place some kind of weak package version dependency or not. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
