FS#37984 - [btrfs-progs] lack of fsck.btrfs causes errors in mkinitcpio

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Jonathan Kotta (jpkotta) - Monday, 02 December 2013, 18:00 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Monday, 02 December 2013, 18:11 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:

The fsck hook of mkinicpio expects an fsck.<fsname> for each filesystem. The fsck hook is on by default. When mkinitcpio doesn't find fsck.btrfs, there is an error, though it's harmless other than making the user think something is wrong. btrfs doesn't need an offline fsck for unclean mounts, as explained in its wiki (https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#What.27s_the_difference_between_btrfsck_and_fsck.btrfs). The wiki recommends copying /bin/true to /sbin/fsck.btrfs. I use a symlink instead of a copy.

Maybe the correct place to fix this is mkinitcpio, but given that the btrfs wiki recommends the symlink and that the symlink fix is so simple, I'm reporting the bug against this package.

This task depends upon

Closed by  Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Monday, 02 December 2013, 18:11 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't fix
Additional comments about closing:  Duplicate of  FS#29182 
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Monday, 02 December 2013, 18:10 GMT
> The wiki recommends copying /bin/true to /sbin/fsck.btrfs. I use a symlink instead of a copy.
The wiki is giving out bad advice. You shouldn't paper over warnings like this and invent binaries that intentionally do not exist. If btrfs doesn't need to be fsck'd, then don't include the hook. It's as simple as that. Since fsck-needy filesystems are still very commonplace, there's no reason for mkinitcpio to advise against fsck (by not including it as a default).

Loading...