[Buildroot] [PATCH v5 2/2] systemd: select util-linux/fsck and e2fsprogs/e2fsck

[Carlos Santos <casantos@datacom.ind.br>]

> From: "Arnout Vandecappelle" <arnout@mind.be>
> To: "Maxime Hadjinlian" <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Carlos Santos" <casantos@datacom.ind.br>, "buildroot" <buildroot@buildroot.org>, "Thomas Petazzoni"
> <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>, "Joergen Pihlflyckt" <Jorgen.Pihlflyckt@ajeco.fi>
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 8:44:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] systemd: select util-linux/fsck and e2fsprogs/e2fsck

> On 10-04-17 13:30, Maxime Hadjinlian wrote:
>> Hi Arnout,
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:
>>>  Hi Maxime,
>>>
>>> On 10-04-17 13:02, Maxime Hadjinlian wrote:
>>>> Hi all, Carlos
>>>>
---8<---
>>>> I haven't tested it but this looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: "Maxime Hadjinlian <maxime.hadjinlian@gmail.com>"
>>>
>>>  Do you agree with me that selecting e2fsprogs shouldn't be necessary, because
>>> you actually only need them when you mount an ext2 filesystem (which isn't
>>> necessarily the case)?
>>>
>>>  I'm not sure what happens exactly when you have util-linux fsck but no e2fsck
>>> and you try to mount an ext2 filesystem...
>> It would error out I think.
> 
> So, what does it do when you have a ubifs for which no fsck exists?
> 
> Since I guess you and/or Carlos have a systemd-based Buildroot-built system
> available, you could perhaps add a squashfs to your /etc/fstab and see what
> happens? Or remove e2fsck and see what happens?

I don't have a real system using systemd but I can run some tests on
a vurtual machine using QEMU later today.

>> 
>> You are absolutely right, I only saw my own usecase but this only
>> works with an extX filesystem, if you want another fs, you need to
>> select the right tool for the job.
>> Then, how do we know what the user want ? There is the obivous ext
>> filesystem option, but you can always select this, and another
>> filesystem images and use them in different scenario or something.
>> So, should that be a choice menu and we let the user decide ? Or do we
>> just put a comment in the documentation or the help message of systemd
>> and let the user do the correct choice ?
>> 
>> I would go for the choice, with a default to extX as I think it's
>> easier and is pretty safe to assume lot of people are using that
>> theses filessytems now.
> 
> I disagree, many people use ubifs, some use initramfs, squashfs, xfs, btrfs or
> zfs. I have made Buildroot-based systems for all of these (none of them with
> systemd of course, I've never used systemd with Buildroot, but all of them
> *could* have used systemd).

I agree that selecting e2fsprogs does not make much sense. ext[234]
would be a natural choice for a desktop system with a hard disk but
Buildroot is mostly used on  embedded systems on which flash-friendly
filesystems like ubifs are preferable.

-- 
Carlos Santos (Casantos) - DATACOM, P&D
?The greatest triumph that modern PR can offer is the transcendent 
success of having your words and actions judged by your reputation, 
rather than the other way about.? ? Christopher Hitchens