Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:56:22 -0500 From: "Chris G. Demetriou" <cgd@cs.cmu.edu> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, hackers@freebsd.org, port-i386@netbsd.org, darrenr@cyber.com.au Subject: Re: dump for MS-DOS partitions. Message-ID: <5420.859334182@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:58:43 MST." <199703252158.OAA25877@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [ ... what do we prefer ... ]
>
> If I had my way, it'd look like:
> % ls -R /sbin/fs
> cd9660 ffs kernfs lfs
> mfs msdos nfs null
> portal procfs umap union
>
> /sbin/fs/cd9660:
> clri dump fsck fstyp
> mount newfs restore umount
>
> /sbin/fs/ffs:
> clri dump fsck fstyp
> mount newfs restore umount
>
> ...
>
> If I want to add a new FS, I add /sbin/fs/$(NAME) and /lkm/$(NAME)_mod.o
> and it all just works.
I actually agree; I like this layout better, as well.
however, _THAT IS NOT THE POINT_.
If the question is "where should utility X go," then the answer is
currently obvious: /sbin/${util}_${fsname}. That's the current
scheme, which was handed down from Berkeley.
The question "should things be reorganized into a better layout" is
entirely seperate. The answer may be yes, or it may be no, but I
think it's most likely to be "it doesn't matter; it's just not that
important." If you'd like to consider this question, please do...
but not in _my_ mailbox. 8-)
cgd
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5420.859334182>