Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:42:29 +0200 From: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compatibility options for mount(8) Message-ID: <CAOfDtXM958BXberg=N-Pt4H9Z3AF%2BA3MV02sMWFkCSTQXqi%2Bnw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201307111722.r6BHMohd099772@chez.mckusick.com> References: <CAOfDtXM320Ca2vJ0tD7d8Oi1DWCDSwDXheeJSeuULQ_Gboia6g@mail.gmail.com> <201307111722.r6BHMohd099772@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2013/7/11 Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>: > I am fine with your proposed addition. I would favor changing the > manual page from > > +For compatibility with some other implementations; this flag is > > to > > +For compatibility with some Linux implementations; this flag is > > as it is (primarily) Linux compatibility and also reflects the comment > that you have added in the code. Well I'm not sure. There's only one implementation I'm aware of that accepts -n, the one in the Linux version of mount (i.e. the mount program from util-linux package). If we want to be more precise we could investigate, but I think it's overkill. It doesn't hurt to be vague on this IMHO. If you don't mind, I'd leave this with "some other" as initially proposed by Jeremy. -- Robert Millan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfDtXM958BXberg=N-Pt4H9Z3AF%2BA3MV02sMWFkCSTQXqi%2Bnw>