Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 01:43:14 +0100 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> Cc: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mdmfs mount_mfs compatibility bug? Message-ID: <200109300143.aa91266@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:25:20 PDT." <20010930002525.0255D3E04@bazooka.trit.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010930002525.0255D3E04@bazooka.trit.org>, Dima Dorfman writes: > >The problem with this is that in a bikeshed far, far in the past, some >people wanted to me able to call it "mount_md" instead of "mount_mfs". >Of course, we could allow "mfs" and "md", but that seems rather ugly >(what if someone wants "fish"?). I'd rather see mount(8) use >mount_xxx, although if we think that would break something, your patch >is probably the best solution. I can't think of any good reason not to change mount(8), but I also think that mdmfs only needs to support the weird mount_mfs defaults when invoked with a name of "mount_mfs" or "mfs". People can call it mount_fish if they like and it will work fine, just with the mdmfs rather than mount_mfs defaults. The non-compatibility defaults are better defaults anyway, so they should probably be used in all cases except those that are necessary for compatibility with mount_mfs. Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <200109300143.aa91266>