From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 4 07:48:25 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA29620 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 07:48:25 -0800 Received: from cls.net (freeside.cls.de [192.129.50.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id HAA29597 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 07:48:17 -0800 Received: by mail.cls.net (Smail3.1.28.1) from allegro.lemis.de (192.109.197.134) with smtp id ; Sat, 4 Nov 95 15:48 GMT From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) Organisation: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, 36325 Feldatal, Germany Phone: +49-6637-919123 Fax: +49-6637-919122 Reply-To: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) Received: (grog@localhost) by allegro.lemis.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA19685; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:35:26 +0100 Message-Id: <199511041535.QAA19685@allegro.lemis.de> Subject: Re: CD automount and things To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:35:25 +0100 (MET) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers) In-Reply-To: from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Nov 4, 95 09:19:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1517 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk 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