Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:26:47 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, jdp@polstra.com, bemfica@militzer.me.tuns.ca, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nfs problem Message-ID: <199704091926.MAA07377@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199704090149.LAA22555@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Apr 9, 97 11:19:19 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I find it extremely annoying that named options line "resvport" > > > aren't documented for mount or mount_nfs. *grumble* > > > > That's because `resvport' is compatibility cruft. The proper name is > > `-P'. > > Huh? -P is meant to represent a 'better' thing than a meaningful keyword? > That's crazy 8( The -P is a getopt(3) parseable command line option for mount_nfs. And yes, making the fstab options match the command line options for the mount for the FS type specified in the fstab *is* a better thing. You might successfully argue for "-o resvport,nosuid" or whatever as a syntax change for "mount_nfs"... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704091926.MAA07377>