Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:35:25 +0100 (MET) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers) Subject: Re: CD automount and things Message-ID: <199511041535.QAA19685@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <v02130508acc131bd8576@[199.183.109.242]> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Nov 4, 95 09:19:08 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth writes: > > At 8:42 AM 11/4/95, Greg Lehey wrote: > >Still, I've got more important things to worry about. I just don't > >like seeing the UNIX world diverge too much, and so I'm a bit more > >conservative in my approach to this kind of solution. > > So your position is that we should forever carry the burden of poor > design simply because "they have always ..." and we must remain > compatable. Well, it's your interpretation that it's poor design. In the past, /etc/rc always asumed that the mounts would succeed. And as I said, my position is not very firm. > I vote for improved design. Who knows, the others might just copy us. > > In the fstab case, I think the "compatability" issue is reasonably > addressed as long as we recognize and accept the "conventional" > syntax. Yes, I suppose so. Of course, as I said, there's nothing to stop us from doing both, since they address different concerns. > We can afford a few more bytes in the /etc/rc file to terminate > the boot with a descriptive message eg. "Restart aborted - Required > Filesystem Not Ready". That way the user will understand what happened > and either work around the problem or RTFM and do it "right". You obviously haven't seen as many lusers as I have. It would be nice to think so, though. > I would also suggest that the distribution fstab include a sample > entry with the optional flag so that the user who edits the file is > likely to notice the option even if he fails to RTFM. Good idea. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511041535.QAA19685>