Command `mount -a` causing repeated mounts
vda.linux at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 10 20:35:53 UTC 2009
On Wednesday 09 December 2009 08:54, Michael Abbott wrote:
> I guess util-linux is the reference, and it's disappointing to see that
> util-linux mount doesn't also filter single mounts. It's a bit nasty to
> see this commented out in our code:
Why? It does not consume a single byte in the resulting binary.
> presumably we should either implement
> it anyway or remove the code. (I'm talking about lines 2053 to 2070 of
> util-linux/mount.c, of course.) I think I'm agnostic either way.
If/when upstream mount will implement that, yes, then
we should uncomment it.
> My other thought is that the error message should be filtered on the
> verbose flag, which is what util-linux does. Here is a patch for that:
BTW, did you actually tested that it works for you now?
> Do you have any feeling for when there will be a 1.15.3 release? Version
> .2 has suddenly acquired a lot of patches!
> A note on the patch directory (http://busybox.net/downloads/fixes-1.15.2/).
> There is no way to tell what order the patches need to be applied, perhaps
> there ought to be a sequence number after the version number? Also, there
> is no description on each patch of what it does: it would really help, if
> nothing else, to add the associated commit message to the patch, or the
> appropriate snippet from the e-mail that generated it.
> Of course, mostly the patches don't overlap, so maybe my query about
> sequence number is immaterial. However another strange note is that every
> time a new patch is added the "Last modified" date updates for all patches
> (to the same date), so it's hard for me to spot which ones are new (and of
> course, if the date was sensible, I could use that for ordering).
I do not plan to pile up so many patches that these considerations are important.
If you ask these questions, it means it's definitely time for 1.15.3 :)
More information about the busybox