I think OP’s point was that UUIDs can still change, but the stuff that makes up the /by-id/ names cannot. Granted, those aren’t applicable to partitions.
Depends on your definition of “unexpected”. OP was talking about reinstalls for example, where the root partition is deleted and recreated and its UUID will change as a result. If you copy an fstab from an older system backup you will fail the mount the root partition.
UUIDs can also cause some reverse trouble if you clone them with dd in which case they won’t change but they should, and you end up with duplicate UUIDs.
I’m sure you know this, but to to supplement your comment for future readers, UUIDs are also a good solution for partitions.
Labels are better. IMO; they’re semantic.
I agree. Also, I can swap a disk with a new one with the same label, no need to change fstab
I think OP’s point was that UUIDs can still change, but the stuff that makes up the /by-id/ names cannot. Granted, those aren’t applicable to partitions.
Right. I don’t think they and I are in disagreement - just trying to help expand their statement. Thanks!
Right :) the original meme was just talking about drive names (/dev/sdX)
How are the uuids going to change unexpectedly?
Depends on your definition of “unexpected”. OP was talking about reinstalls for example, where the root partition is deleted and recreated and its UUID will change as a result. If you copy an fstab from an older system backup you will fail the mount the root partition.
UUIDs can also cause some reverse trouble if you clone them with
ddin which case they won’t change but they should, and you end up with duplicate UUIDs.