From owner-cvs-all Fri Feb 2 12:32:28 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2B837B67D; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9DC693E02; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from unixfreak.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D103C10C; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:32:01 -0800 (PST) To: Matt Dillon Cc: mi@aldan.algebra.com, deischen@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mdconfig config file (was: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf GENERI C) In-Reply-To: Message from Matt Dillon of "Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:49:53 PST." <200102021849.f12Inri90700@earth.backplane.com> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:31:56 -0800 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010202203201.9DC693E02@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > := Why not write a 'mount_md' program to do all the magic based on fstab > := options, similar to what mount_mfs used to do for MFS? A 'mount_md' > := would give us instant integration into existing kernel mechanisms, > := including startup (/etc/rc) mechanisms. > : > > (this whole thing is predicated on someone writing a mount_md wrapper > for MD that mimics the options mount_mfs accepts, for compatibility). I'll do it. Would it be safe to assume that it's acceptable to write a C program to parse the arguments, build command lines to appropriately invoke disklabel, newfs, maybe tunefs, and mount, then call system(3) to execute them? Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message