From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 27 21:52:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACDB16A40F for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:52:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6029743D7D for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:52:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8RLqn4Y061525; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:52:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:27:29 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <451ADC21.50206@centtech.com> <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:52:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/1948/Wed Sep 27 12:03:03 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:52:59 -0000 On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote: > Eric Anderson wrote: > > I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what > > seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660. Is there any reason not to move it? > > Curious mostly.. > > > > Eric > > > > > > Inertia, mostly. And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs? Let the > bi-yearly debate begin..... > > Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up > fairly regularly. We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though, > so thanks for giving it a kickstart. We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. Only cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs and ufs alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra isofs directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point. -- John Baldwin