From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] file-systems: Suppress fsck status completion bar.
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 11:57:33 +0100
Message-ID: <87shplo676.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20161105125511.29383-1-mbakke@fastmail.com>
	<20161105125511.29383-4-mbakke@fastmail.com> <87r36owaap.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87y40w88g9.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<8760nzy8bj.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87mvhb8wpn.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	<20161107111509.519536fc@scratchpost.org>
	<874m223nco.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35241)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1cIZ9v-0002N3-JO
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 05:57:40 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1cIZ9s-00061g-Go
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 05:57:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <874m223nco.fsf@kirby.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
	(Marius Bakke's message of "Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:40:23 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> skribis:

> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> why not just use "fsck -t xxx" instead? It will filter out "-C" for
>> fscks which don't support it.
>
> I think pending a proper solution for handling fsck commands, offloading
> it to util-linux is a decent compromise. Ludo, WDYT?

I think the problem is that until
d9804e5011a58341aafbf4fadd00947f3e5f436e (in core-updates), =E2=80=98mount=
=E2=80=99 from
util-linux could not find those programs:

  https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D25043

I=E2=80=99d expect it to be the same for =E2=80=98fsck=E2=80=99.

But anyway, we might just as well do the dispatch ourselves like
discussed at
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-12/msg00095.html>.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.