[systemd-devel] Stricter handling of failing mounts during boot under systemd - crap idea !

[jon]

On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 20:40 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 29.06.15 18:50, jon (jon at jonshouse.co.uk) wrote:
> 
> > > and why don't you just add "nofail"
> > > it's way shorter then write a ton of emails
> >
> > Yes, this I have in fact done.  I have the right to complain though
> > ! 
> 
> You don't have the "right" to do this on this mailing list though.
So let me get this correct.
I (a user) does not have the right to complain about systemd on the
systemd developer mailing list, even though my complaint is about a new
behaviour of linux machines caused by systemd .... hmmm .... I wont go
further along this line as I may be banned. 

> 
> Please do it elsewhere, like on Slashdot or so. The systemd mailing
> list is a forum for technical discussions, and rants like yours are
> simply not appropriate, they are just noise and not constructive.
> 
> > I am not writing this to take the p***, this really the type of thing
> > that people maintaining a few servers on a small scale have to consider.
> 
> Here's a recommendation for the next time you post a rant like this:
> do your research first, and see if there might be technical reasons
> for the behaviour you see, instead of assuming there are no reasons
> for it except that the auhtors of the software want to be dicks to
> you...

Maybe not dicks to me directly, but maybe dicks for not thinking it
through, not caring that changing default behaviour may have impacts
they have not considered and should be avoided if possible. 

What for example is the technical reason why the "nofail" logic could
not have been inverted ? I have not heard any technical argument that is
compelling as to why this could not have worked the other way up and
default behaviour not have been kept, other than that would require to
cooperation from the installer authors to add "some other flag" to
volumes that must always be available at boot time?

Thanks,
Jon