On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 7:27 PM Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com> wrote:
I'd also drop all the preconditions like using defaults. Pretty much
any possible installer allowed configuration that trips up this test
case is an eyeball opener and should be tracked down.


> > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/7013/why-do-we-use-su-and-not-just-su
> *sigh* ten points

How to test #1 can probably be omitted in favor of just using # in
front of commands that are expected to be run either as root user or
with sudo. *shrug*

I find it better to say "Run the following command with administrative privileges:" (or root or superuser privileges). Anyone who doesn't know what it means likely can't debug the issue anyway.

The second approach I do (and probably even prefer to the above, because it is more explicit) is to prefix all such commands with sudo. Then it is clear that you need to run them as root. And if you run them verbatim under root directly (including sudo), there's no harm.

(I'm also a fan of `sudo -i` anyway...)


"su -" and "sudo -i". Wipe everything else from your memory, people :-)

I'd like the test case to have the least burden on the reporter that
also produces a useful report:
1. includes the -b journal (current, shows journal replay messages)
2. includes the -b -1 journal (previous, might show some evidence of
why unmount was not clean)

Yes, that's reasonable.