Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 14:47:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco) Cc: phk@critter.tfs.com, wollman@lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@village.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ccd ccd.c src/sys/dev/vn vn.c src/sys/sys conf.h src/sys/i386/isa fd.c mcd.c scd.c wcd.c wd.c wt.c s Message-ID: <199607262147.OAA20960@shrimp.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199607262003.PAA18767@brasil.moneng.mei.com> from "Joe Greco" at Jul 26, 96 03:03:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > As much as I pride myself with never agreeing with Garrett, I'm having a > > hard time finding a reason not to in this particular case. :-) > > > > There are a couple of fine points still not resolved. > > There is >still< no way to generally specify a policy: > > "Make all disks foo.bar mode 0640" > > and such. > > This is a good point. There are some of us who use things like amanda for > backups, and currently I rely on blind chance and the amanda report to > remind me when I have bad permissions on a disk. > > My personal opinion, however, is that you can make this sort of a thing > into a real problem and go to great lengths to "solve" it at ridiculous > cost in complexity. > > Let's say, for example, that you were to create a "sd.defaults" file that > specifies the default permissions for any newly created sd device. Well > that's fine for the general case, but now somebody wants a special case > for sd5, which holds a raw-partition database. It starts to get icky. The > cure is worse than the disease, IMVHO. Unless somebody has a functionally > better cure... > > I probably am not qualified to be a part of this architectural discussion > anyways so I'll butt out now :-) I'm just speaking as someone who has > gotten very tired of no, every comment is welcome! what I've started doing: mount -t devfs devfs /mnt cd .mnt find . -print |cpio -pdmuv /dev cd / umount /mnt :) > > ./MAKEDEV sd13 sd13s1 sd13s1e sd14 sd14s1 sd14s1e > > > The major/minor of the underlying nodes are of course of no significance, > > but wouldn't it be nice to get rid of all that blasted code entirely ? > > > > Why would we even care about the type of node apart from "Directory" or > > "Not Directory" ? Ie, we could mount devfs on a FS that doesn't support > > c/b devs at all (msdos, hfs ...) > > I wouldn't care :-) I think that would be a superb feature. > > ... JG >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607262147.OAA20960>