[Leaplist] fstab

[Bryan J. Smith]

While I can understand some of the UUID complaints, as it's hardly
"descriptive," I can_not_ understand the LABEL complains.  And Red
Hat is hardly the only distro doing that one (but we're one of the
first for UUID AFAICT).

Jim Hartley wrote:  
> OK, I see the value for large and/or complex installations.
> But for the user who is NOT going to do this stuff, who is
> never going to move disks around, and who always wants the
> NEXT install to look like the previous one, it's a PITA.

Do you use USB storage?  If so, then understand the LABEL is what is
used to mount under /media.  ;)

Why stop there?  Why don't we just use Drive Letters?  TLD like /c,
/d, etc...?  I don't jest, I've seen that asked.  ;)

> Perhaps the solution is to keep the default using UUIDs,

Wait!

Are we complaining about UUIDs now?
Or are we complaining about LABELs?
  
> but provide an option during the install process to select
> "hard coded devices in fstab".

There are other dependencies in Anaconda that use LABELs, let alone
UUIDs.  But yes, there could be a re-write to dump out /etc/fstab to
be different when done.  Of course some consumer setups will still
have issues post-install.

That's why LABELs, now UUIDs, became the default across-the-board. 
The new GIO-GVFS also uses UUIDs, and then presents via LABELs.

I know, I had two (2) USB devices with the same label outside of my
control.  I.e., bought two (2) external USB devices.  GIO-GVFS
addresses that better now.  Back in the Fedora 8 days, I got all
sorts of issues with gnome-vfs.

Even better was when Windows _toasted_ them because of it.  It made
Drive Letter assumptions.  Sigh.

> For **MY** personal convenience, I am going to get rid of
> the damn LABELs I have now, and when I get around to
> installing Fedora 9 (fairly soon) I will just edit fstab
> to get eid of the UUIDs.

Your choice.

> Some installs DO NOT NEED the extra security - the good ole
> convenient way is jes' fine!

That's ironic, because the LABEL approach _is_ the most "convenient"
way we know of.  I can understand some of the "views" on using UUID. 
Unfortunately, for avoiding LABELs, that I don't understand.  It's
what is used for USB.

I assume LABELs to not just Ext3 and XFS, but FAT and NTFS
filesystems as well.  If you don't, then that's your decision.  I
just wouldn't question why others do.

Just a consideration.  I mean, I don't tell people what they should
do, I never do.  I just try to point out why it defaults for others. 
And that includes for consumer reasons -- especially LABELs.

I'm very happy to see the new resolution with GIO-GVFS in Fedora 9,
as well as the UUID switch.  Other distros will be following suit. 
If you don't like Red Hat, or those other distros that do it, then
use something else if you really feel strongly about it.

Of course, to support development, it's good to adhere to solid,
enterprise approaches.  Canonical recently got smacked by Dell for
not doing so with Ubuntu.  That's undercutting their funding. 
History repeats itself *COUGH*Mandriva*COUGH*.  ;)


-- 
Bryan J. Smith       Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org  http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
------------------------------------------------------
       Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution