[Buildd-tools-devel] Bug#500871: Bug#500871: schroot: Revisiting bug#427047: followup implementation question

[Peter Rabbitson]

Roger Leigh wrote:
>> I have a
>> documentation/example question though. Everywhere in the documentation
>> and in the default fstab file you assert that "The format of this file
>> is the same as  for  /etc/fstab,  documented in fstab(5)". However in my
>> initial proposal I dropped the 5th and 6th field, namely fs_freq and
>> fs_passno. Is there a reason to maintain those without mentioning that
>> their values are ignored? Or are the values in fact interpreted in some way?
> 
> We use the standard POSIX getmntent family of functions to read the
> file; these are the same functions used to read /etc/fstab and
> /etc/mtab.  As a result, the file format is identical, and this requires
> using all 6 fields.  This is more reliable than parsing the file
> ourselves--we use the system parser that all other programs use.
> 
> We don't mention that the values are ignored; this is partly because you
> have to write values as you would in /etc/fstab (i.e. 0 0), and partly
> because this gives us the ability to use them in the future if we wanted
> to run fsck on session startup, for example.
> 

All points are valid, I understand the reason for this decision now. All
objections withdrawn, please close this bug.

Cheers

Peter