Re: "dynamic" fstab

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst) writes:

> martin%duskware.de@localhost (Martin Husemann) writes:
>
>>On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:39:16AM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>>> I find it stupid to put UUID into a field that is meant to be human-readable
>>> just to work around an obvious defect in operating system.
>
>>I agree - there should be a UUID= equivalent to NAME=.
>
> Not all disk partitions have a UUID. I also do not think that
> UUIDs are particularly userfriendly. If UUIDs are meant to
> provide a workaround for name conflicts, I rather suggest
> that such conflicts should be resolved automatically by
> generating new names possibly derived from the original
> one.

Even less disk partitions have unique "NAME".

User-friendliness is a subtle topic. In my opinion, UUID is the more
friendly to a user than some human-generated name. You can copy UUID
in a way that suggests physical access to the medium. Hence, when you
write UUID into fstab, you can be almost sure that you don't meet
another partition with the same identification, unless you break UUID
semantics _yourself_ (by physically copying the image and using it on
the same system).


-- 
BECHA...
   CKOPO CE3OH...