Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:15:48 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: perry@piermont.com Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, port-i386@netbsd.org Subject: Re: how to name fs specific programs Message-ID: <199703260515.WAA27212@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199703260433.XAA03736@jekyll.piermont.com> from "Perry E. Metzger" at Mar 25, 97 11:33:41 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This makes no sense. > > The names of your programs have NOTHING to do with union mounts. You > can name them anything that doesn't conflict and union mount > them. Not, of course, that this is a reasonable use of union mounts, > but if it was, your comment still would make no sense. > > None of what you have said give any good reason why you might want to > name something ffs_mount or ffs/mount instead of mount_ffs. Look: I want it called "mount" not "ffs_mount" because I might refer to the directory containing the "ffs_mount" instead of the directory containing the agregating "mount" during boot. If the name of the program is not the same as the name of the agregator, then I have to have the agregator in all boot-time configurations. I want it in a directory so I can make all the commands come and go as I please knowing only the FS type on which they operate, and not which commands are (or aren't) implemented for a given FS type. It is an issue of switching granularity, nothing more. Union mounts might be one way the things come and go. AMD might be another. Component-based installation and deinstalltion might be yet another. As might an alternate installation scenario where the FS containing the commands is not the same as it is in a default install because I am droping my kernel in in place of an SCO or Solaris or Linux or ... kernel. Really, I don't *care* how they come and go, only that the way things are implemented allow it to happen easily and at the right switching granularity. The reference to "breaking existing dependencies" is silly without someone being able to cite a specific example of an existing dependency which would be broken. No one has yet provided such an example. The issues of interoperability are silly unless there is binary interoperability between the camps, which for these system-specific commands, there isn't at this time. > Not that this makes any sense (because it doesn't) but that still says > nothing about why you might want to name something ffs_mount instead > of mount_ffs. I *don't* want to name if "ffs_mount"; I want to name it "ffs/mount". Regards, 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?199703260515.WAA27212>