(fwd) busybox mount -a fix.

[Paul Fox]

 > > why are you inventing new behavior for the mount exit code?  granted,
 > > it's odd behavior, and perhaps gratuitous on the part of the original
 > > author, but i see no point in changing it arbitrarily.
 > 
 > Or I can just do 0 for success and nonzero for failure, which is pretty 
 > standard everywhere, and is also what it's currently doing.  The rest is just 
 > passing back extra information which can be trivially ignored.
 > 
 > >  > So you want to support bits 32 and 64, but not bits 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16? 
 > >  > Why do bits 32 and 64 make sense in isolation?
 > >
 > > i think it would be great to support all 7.
 > 
 > I don't.  Those return codes aren't even standardized as far as BSD:
 > http://www.hmug.org/man/8/mount.php

who cares?  aren't you always quick to point out that we don't
run on bsd?  remember, you're the one that brought up the exit
code bits in the first place, which got me interested, so i
implemented the interesting ones.

 > This is something util-linux dreamed up, and I was unaware we

as opposed to something you dreamed up.  since we have no proper
man pages that document our return codes, i would have thought
that trying to match _some_ mount's behavior would be better than
rolling our own.  you've still not given another example of a
program that exits with an errno as an exit status.  but i assume
you have precedent?

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at brightstareng.com