Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:02:28 -0800 (PST) From: Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca> To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.east-arlington.ma.us> Cc: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, perry@piermont.com, hackers@freebsd.org, NetBSD i386 Users <port-i386@netbsd.org> Subject: Re: how to name fs specific programs Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.970326105430.22608J-100000@cynic.portal.ca> In-Reply-To: <199703261426.OAA10034@orchard.east-arlington.ma.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > ...and he believes that the name > of the filesystem type should be defined purely by the name used in > the /sbin/fs directory, and not by anything inherent in the binaries > found inside /sbin/fs/foo/. In other words, one wants /sbin/nfs/mount, and /sbin/nfs/nfsmount is wrong because the word `nfs' appears in the files under /sbin/nfs? I can't see what advantage this offers besides aesthetic. Certainly the code doesn't care whether or not there's an _ or a / between the two %s strings in the printf format. It does seem to me to be a disadvantage in that if the file is ever encountered outside of the tree (say, you restore a single file from backup) it's very easy to get confused as to which mount program it is. cjs Curt Sampson cjs@portal.ca Info at http://www.portal.ca/ Internet Portal Services, Inc. Through infinite myst, software reverberates Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 In code possess'd of invisible folly.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.970326105430.22608J-100000>