From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 28 22:53:23 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141D616C6D5; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:42:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rodrigc@crodrigues.org) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [63.240.77.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B9743D4C; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:42:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rodrigc@crodrigues.org) Received: from c-24-147-19-128.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (c-71-233-168-2.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[71.233.168.2](misconfigured sender)) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20060528224221013007v74he>; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:42:21 +0000 Received: from c-24-147-19-128.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c-24-147-19-128.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4SMgKAe013127; Sun, 28 May 2006 18:42:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rodrigc@c-24-147-19-128.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) Received: (from rodrigc@localhost) by c-24-147-19-128.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.13.6/8.13.1/Submit) id k4SMgKY0013126; Sun, 28 May 2006 18:42:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rodrigc) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 18:42:20 -0400 From: Craig Rodrigues To: Daniel Gerzo Message-ID: <20060528224220.GA13099@crodrigues.org> References: <20060528215447.GA6955@crodrigues.org> <172215878.20060529002737@rulez.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <172215878.20060529002737@rulez.sk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Where would a nullfs man page go? X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 22:53:26 -0000 On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 12:27:37AM +0200, Daniel Gerzo wrote: > > Where would the best place be to put nullfs man page, then? > > Well, I'm not sure, though there's a msdosfs(5) already, so maybe the > section 5 is relevant for nullfs as well? msdosfs is an actual on disk format/filesystem, so I can understand it going in section 5 for file formats. nullfs is not a file format, so I am not sure it should go in section 5, but I am not opposed to it. -- Craig Rodrigues rodrigc@crodrigues.org