RFC - Bugs 688 & 732

James Robertson jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 21 09:34:39 PST 2004


Greg Schafer wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I want to close these 2 bugs as wontfix. Bringing here for discussion before
> doing so.
> 
> http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=688
> 
> This bug was opened by me but I've now changed my mind after thinking long
> and hard about it. I still believe that mounting from within the chroot is
> technically not sound, but it ain't so bad in the overall context of an LFS
> build. Sure, /proc/mounts and the real /etc/mtab can get out of sync, but
> the consequences of this aren't too worrisome when it's only some virtual
> file systems we're dealing with.

After reading the comments in the bug, I agree with the decision to keep 
everyting associated with /tools in CH5 and everything associated with 
$LFS in CH6.  This provides a clear seperation between the two 
environments.  This essentially means we don't change anything like you 
have proposed.  (I know this was the long way to say "I agree".  I just 
wanted to provide a clear point of decision for other readers)

> 
> http://bugs.linuxfromscratch.org/show_bug.cgi?id=732
> 
> is suggesting we use "mount -n" to suppress the:
> 
> "warning: can't open /etc/fstab: No such file or directory"
> 
> when mounting from within the chroot. While using the "-n" certainly gets
> rid of the warning, it leads to other confusion. If you're inside the chroot
> and you type "mount" to see what's mounted, if mtab is missing (which it is
> due to use of "-n") then you get the output of /proc/partitions which is all
> the real mounts as viewed from outside the chroot! Nasty.
> 
> Currently, the first mount of proc gives the warning of "can't open
> /etc/fstab" but it does create an mtab file inside the chroot resulting in
> further mounts not bitching. It also means typing "mount" to see the current
> mounts gives the right results.
> 
> In summary, I don't think it's a problem getting the initial "can't open
> /etc/fstab" warning. If we really wanted to get rid of the warning we could
> always "touch /etc/mtab" before mounting like we used to. But that was
> removed when is was realised that the first mount of /proc creates /etc/mtab
> anyway (albeit with a warning about missing /etc/fstab).
> 
> Confused? I hope not :-)
> 
> Unless there are some major objections, I'll close these 2 bugs as wontfix
> making a ref back to this thread.
> 
> Greg

How about we just say that in the book?  Provides a touch of educational 
value while not suppressing anything and we move on.

James




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list