Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 02:00:39 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I almost hate to suggest this... Message-ID: <81864.914061639@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Dec 1998 01:55:09 PST." <199812190955.BAA07155@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> When someone has time available, making a separate mount_ufs > and rewriting mount itself to always exec a sub-mount binary > would be even better. But as a poor-man's fix the above Hmmm. I always got the feeling that the original CSRG folk deliberately stuck "ufs mounting" into mount(8) so that one binary could be copied around easily for fixit purposes, ufs being the one fs that could be deemed somewhat in the "bootstrap" class and perhaps worthy of special treatment. Then again, maybe not, I'm just saying that this most obvious lack of orthogonality (not writing mount(8) as a minimal wrapper) may well have been deliberate. I've bcc'd somebody who might know the real story in any case. :) - Jordan 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?81864.914061639>