From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 22 14:40:34 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA06608
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA06602
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA13880; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <326D3DE4.167EB0E7@whistle.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:34:28 -0700
From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
Organization: Whistle Communications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
CC: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: comments on this change please.
References: <199610221740.KAA08201@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Terry Lambert wrote:
> 

> > please comment.
> 
> Begging the Captain's pardon, but...
> 
> It seems to me that the correct thing is to move the FIFO to /var/run,
> unconditionally.
sure but BSDI binaries and old binaries will be problematic
hence the symlink as well (for a limited time)

> 
> It also seems to me that if the Linux binary compataility dependent
> people wanted a /dev/log, they would be well advised to do:
> 
>         ln -s /var/run/syslog.socket /compat/linux/dev/log
that's ok for linux but not BSDI

> 
> And realize that the path lookup order for Linux binaries will make
> this "just work".
> 
> The same goes for other platforms for which binary compatability is
> an issue.
BSDI runs as native..

> 
> For read-only /, even if /compat is on /, it seems that you could
> safely precreate these symlinks.
> 
> Finally, using this technique, there is no reason devfs has to support
> symlinks itself... if the FreeBSD user wants to make links in /dev
> (why?), then they can use unionfs.

too late.. devfs already does support symlinks
but rofs should not be predecated on having devfs anyhow.


>