Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#43915 - [systemd] 219 breaks nfs mounting at boot
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Sunday, 22 February 2015, 22:02 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Sunday, 22 March 2015, 15:08 GMT
Opened by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Sunday, 22 February 2015, 22:02 GMT
Last edited by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Sunday, 22 March 2015, 15:08 GMT
|
DetailsI can't get my systems to mount my nfsv4 share at initial boot. I can mount it manually without any trouble. rpcbind and nfs-client are running. I'm using netctl on my systems. journal doesn't show any useful error. I assume some change timing or dependency issue here. Downgrading to systemd 218 makes it mount well again.
Any idea? Can somebody confirm this? |
This task depends upon
Closed by Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Sunday, 22 March 2015, 15:08 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: remote-fs.target needs to be enabled if you want remote FS support at bootup. This will be re-enabled in a future package.
Sunday, 22 March 2015, 15:08 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: remote-fs.target needs to be enabled if you want remote FS support at bootup. This will be re-enabled in a future package.
I think the "Arch Way" solution here is to get rid of all the hackery in the PKGBUILD and .install file that remove these sensible defaults and use upstream's /usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/90-systemd.preset file instead.
You've got it quite backwards. Removing this "hackery" means that we forcibly enable a bunch of things at boot which people may or may not want (and this will happen again on every upgrade). Removing the symlinks gives the power back to the admin to make the choice as to what they want to. 90-systemd.preset enables far more than I want to provide as a default.
Should we post a .install msg about such a change or even a news item? We will need to add a note to all related wiki pages for remote filesystems.