From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 22:38:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233) id 10D65106566C; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:38:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:38:56 +0000 From: Alexander Best To: Juli Mallett Message-ID: <20101027223856.GA87087@freebsd.org> References: <201010271848.o9RImNSR019344@svn.freebsd.org> <20101027212601.GA78062@freebsd.org> <4CC899C3.7040107@FreeBSD.org> <20101027214822.GA82697@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Doug Barton , src-committers@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: svn commit: r214431 - head/bin/rm X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:38:56 -0000 On Wed Oct 27 10, Juli Mallett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 14:48, Alexander Best wrote: > > On Wed Oct 27 10, Doug Barton wrote: > >> What may be a better approach is to confirm the fs' that DO work, list > >> them, and then add something to the effect of, "This feature is unlikely > >> to work on other file systems." > > > > i don't think that's a good approach, because then the rm(1) has to be changed > > everytime freebsd gets a new fs which works with the -P option. i think it's > > better to list which fs semantics DON'T work. so if freebsd gets a new fs, > > users simply have to know which semantics the new fs is based on and can decide > > for themselves whether the -P switch will work or not. > > > > so far the -P option doesn't seem to work for: > > > > - COW fs and/or > > - fs with a variable block size and/or > > - fs which do journaling > > I really don't want to ask the average user to know whether their > filesystem is in-place block-rewriting or not. That's just silly. In > this case Doug is right; I don't think FreeBSD gets new file systems > as often as you think that it would be a big burden. Having a general > description of the types of filesystem it can work on might be useful, > but a list seems more useful still. Listing the types it can't work > on is backwards because that requires a user to understand the > dichotomy as well as knowing what kind of filesystem they don't have / > do have. And for them to never get it backwards. At least mount(8) > will tell you what filesystem you are using; there's no tool to tell > you the properties of your filesystem, and good luck easily-mining an > answer to the question of whether your filesystem fits into that > category from a manpage without introducing substantial confusion. > > Maybe there should be substantial confusion around this feature, > though, since that's what it seems to be there for. how about fusefs? i think there's an ongoing disussion about importing it into HEAD on arch@ or fs@. won't this bring in support for a number of new filesystems which then all have to be documented in the rm(1) manual? but if in fact all working fs should get mentioned...what are they? - UFS1/2 - ext2fs - FAT12/16/32 ...any more? what about memory backed fs like tmpfs? cheers. alex > > Juli. -- a13x