Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:10:26 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? Message-ID: <20060929191026.GA8206@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <451D4787.4050309@samsco.org> References: <451ADC21.50206@centtech.com> <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> <451D4787.4050309@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Scott Long wrote.. > John Baldwin wrote: > >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. > > > > What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?. And > don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch! Ah, I love the > smell of fresh paint in the morning. Smells like.... napalm. Now where is that Wagner MP3 again.. ?? -- Wilko Bulte wilko@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060929191026.GA8206>