From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 24 10:48:58 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE2D974;
 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:48:58 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from crees@bayofrum.net)
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com
 (mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.1])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753B8291A;
 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:48:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Trace: 576280/mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$ON_NET_AUTH_ACCEPTED/Talk_Talk_Customer/2.102.104.150/None/crees@bayofrum.net
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 2.102.104.150
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: crees@bayofrum.net
X-SMTP-AUTH: bayofrum@uwclub.net
X-MUA: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYJAMCv71ECZmiW/2dsb2JhbABbgwZFwUAKgQsXdIIkAQEEATocIxALDjg5HgaIHQq5G49HMwcugmRuA51viz2DFTs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,734,1367967600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="576280"
X-IP-Direction: OUT
Received: from host-2-102-104-150.as13285.net (HELO pegasus.bayofrum.net)
 ([2.102.104.150])
 by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 24 Jul 2013 11:47:47 +0100
Received: from zeus.bayofrum.net (zeus.bayofrum.net [192.168.1.151])
 by pegasus.bayofrum.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B4D4530C2B;
 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:46:21 +0100 (BST)
References: <51EFA71B.1070601@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <51EFA71B.1070601@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <2CACBF9B-AA7F-456B-AC39-038812DA016E@bayofrum.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Chris Rees <crees@bayofrum.net>
Subject: Re: mount(1) without /etc/fstab
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:46:20 +0100
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-bayofrum-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-bayofrum-MailScanner-ID: B4D4530C2B.AAD27
X-bayofrum-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-bayofrum-MailScanner-From: crees@bayofrum.net
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:48:58 -0000

On 24 Jul 2013, at 11:06, Andriy Gapon wrote:

>=20
> I found behavior of mount(1) rather annoying when there is no /etc/fstab.
> Some systems legitimately do not need (anything in) /etc/fstab, so all of=
 that
> complaining is in vain.
>=20
> Should mount(1) be silenced in this case?
> Or should we have and install an empty etc/fstab just to please mount(1)?

I think mount should be silenced.  This is a problem that has come up in a =
couple of ports that complain-- the package building jails don't have fstab=
s, and we have to work around that.

Chris
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.