From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Feb 22 13:49: 1 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0AA37B401 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mukappabeta.net (moghedien.mukappabeta.net [194.145.150.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B84343F85 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:48:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mkb@mukappabeta.de) Received: by mukappabeta.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3793D3440B; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:48:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:48:49 +0100 From: Matthias Buelow To: Jan Grant Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mdmfs /tmp and fstab on 5.0 Message-ID: <20030222214849.GE16534@moghedien.mukappabeta.net> References: <20030222024546.GD16534@moghedien.mukappabeta.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jan Grant writes: >ln -s mdmfs /sbin/mount_mfs Yes, that's a workaround I had in mind. >As I recall, mdmfs wasn't called "mount_mfs" at the time because the >author wasn't prepared to fight the battle he assumed (probably >correctly) would arise out of doing so. I can't see any problem there, if the mdmfs program is compatible with mount_mfs. I mean, the manpage even explicitly says, "the mdmfs utility is designed to be a work-alike and look-alike of the deprecated mount_mfs(8)." Why then the different name, especially with the result that it can no longer be used with fstab? I mean, the old mount_mfs doesn't seem to exist anymore so there would be no naming conflict. -- Matthias Buelow To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message