On Wednesday 22 February 2006 11:18, Paul Howarth wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Wednesday 22 February 2006 10:56, Paul Howarth wrote: > >>Anne Wilson wrote: > >>>Something strange is happening in my attempts to write to fstab. I have > >>>added, for instance, > >>> > >>>LABEL=/OldData > >>>/dev/hdb9 /mnt/data ext3 users 1 2 > >>> > >>>then umounted the manual mount of /mnt/data and run > >>> > >>>[root@david ~]# mount -a > >>>mount: mount point does not exist > >>> > >>>However, the mount occurs and /mnt/data is readable in konqueror. > >>> > >>>Clearly there is some sort of problem, but what? > >> > >>There appears to be two lines: > >> > >>LABEL=/OldData > >> > >>This line does not have enough fields and is the one mount complains > >> about. > >> > >>/dev/hdb9 /mnt/data ext3 users 1 2 > >> > >>This line has the right number of fields and hence works. > > > > Hi, Paul. I copied from the existing entries, not realising that the > > display had split the lines. However, I not get > > > > [mntent]: line 9 in /etc/fstab is bad > > [mntent]: line 10 in /etc/fstab is bad > > [mntent]: line 11 in /etc/fstab is bad > > [mntent]: line 12 in /etc/fstab is bad > > > > These are my entries: > > > > LABEL=/OldData /dev/hdb9 /mnt/data > > ext3 users 1 2 > > LABEL=/home_july05 /dev/hdb7 /mnt/home_july05 > > ext3 users 1 2 > > LABEL=/mnt/home_dec05 /dev/hdb11 /mnt/home_dec05 > > ext3 users 1 2 > > LABEL=OldVideo /dev/hdb8 /mnt/video > > ext3 users 1 2 > > > > In each case KWrite is highlighting the final parameter. I know that > > these parameters concern checking, but I don't much much else, so again I > > copied from the existing /home line. > > > > Advice, please? > > The LABEL= syntax is an alternative to specifying the device/partition. > So you'd use > > LABEL=/OldData > > *instead of* > > /dev/hdb9 > > rather than in addition to it. The filesystem can be labelled using > e2label. This syntax can help when actual device names are prone to > changing (more often the case with SCSI drives than IDE ones). > > You're probably better off just dispensing with the LABEL= field > altogether in this case. > That seems to have fixed it, Paul. Thanks. Time for more reading ;-) Anne
Attachment:
pgpAINPkUPRhG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
