Post by BrianPost by Christian GroesslerPost by CurtPost by Stefan MonnierActually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long enough
intervals, that I can never know if it was "4 months ago" or "7 months
ago", and neither can I remember which laptop/desktop has the delay set
to 172 days vs 194 days vs 98 days vs ...
Can't you write a small script to obviate the limitations of your human
memory, like this little hacker here did?
http://nwalsh.com/hacks/mountinfo/
http://nwalsh.com/hacks/mountinfo/mountinfo
Why don't the systemd proponents understand that someone might want to
interrupt a running fsck? Don't scrutinize the reasons, just accept
the fact.
Please could we stick to the technical aspects of this problem. Attempts
to apportion responsibilty rarely lead anywhere.
Technical? What exactly do you mean by technical?
It seems lately that the word "technical" in some contexts seems to have
developed the meaning "achievable by appropriate incantation."
That is not what I mean when I say "technical", at any rate.
Post by BrianPost by Christian GroesslerAfter all, it's *my* computer, and *I* want to be in control of it.
Curt's link brings the number of discussable solutions to four. Here is
None of which address the real issue.
Some developer made a seemingly minor, seemingly "logical" change in
things, and the effect is that some user who had been depending on debian
stable to be stable found his computer unusable without advance warning in
a situation where he needed it.
Sure, in the real world, especially with consumer grade OSses, things like
this do sometimes happen. In the "real" world, expectations of high
availabilty have to be bought with expensive service contracts from
companies that are supposed to do all sorts of testing so that this kind of
thing doesn't happen to the paying customer.
Fedora users have been a volunteer group of testers, paid, essentially,
in-kind for their testing.
So debian users have been living in a dream world. Systemd marks the end of
that dream world.
That much, I'll grant you.
Post by BrianGRUB is made aware of an impending fsck. Booting thows it into a submenu
with the choice of doing a fsck or not. You control which route to take.
This kind of thinking requires grub to be able to communicate with the OS
which it is booting after it releases control. In other words, grub has to
become a minimalistic OS. The grub group has been discussing that for
several years. Xen is one of the results of that discussion. But grub,
itself, is not there yet.
What I want to know is why you don't seem to be aware that your suggestion
is dependent on a possible future direction for grub, and cannot help
anyone now who wants to be able to predict when an fsck becomes impending,
to avoid an undesirable situation which had not existed before the upgrade
to Jesse with the recommended stock init for Jesse.
This is why we can call it unexpected: The fsck was expected, sure. But
being unable to stop the fsck was not expected, unless you happened to have
experienced it when it hit Fedora as part of systemd.
Not everyone here is a Fedora refugee.
Before you start crying about personal attacks, let me tell you that I
have, as a professional engineer, faced similar criticisms of my technical
choices at work. Facing this kind of criticism comes with the territory
when you choose an engineering field, because every engineer makes
mistakes. If an engineer reacts by blaming the user, he generally is told
he can look for another job, preferably in another field.
--
Joel Rees