FC6 mount ntfs-3g problem.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 08:17 +1030, Tim wrote:
> Mikkel L. Ellertson:
> >> Is there a difference in how mount handles things if the drive is 
> >> missing if you use the LABEL= form? I know in the past, the system 
> >> would not boot normally if you used the device form and the drive 
> >> was not there.
> 
> Patrick O'Callaghan:
> > It's a while since I've tried it without the LABEL= form. Remember that
> > Fedora now recommends using labels (since F7 I think).
> 
> Since FC7, at least.  I'm using them on a FC6 box, and I'm fairly
> certain that wasn't just because I felt like it.
> 
> > With the LABEL= form I get:
> > 
> > # umount /xtra
> >         -- now turn off external drive
> > # mount /xtra
> > mount: special device LABEL=/xtra does not exist
> 
> I'd expect labels to be better, too.  But both ways return an immediate
> error then tried on the command line.  If you're trying to mount a
> device, the OS expects that device to be there.  If you try to mount a
> label, the OS is going to look through the currently available devices
> to see if it can find it.  I wonder if the boot routines handle "drive
> doesn't exist" errors differently?

Only if fstab has them set to run fsck at boot time, in which case the
boot will pause and offer to drop you to a Shell (I just tried it). And
of course if the drive has stuff the boot process needs then it's going
to fail. Otherwise it should carry on regardless.

poc