From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Feb 22 16:23:20 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 6250737B401 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:23:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from dire.bris.ac.uk (dire.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA8C43F93 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:23:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk) Received: from mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk by dire.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:22:54 +0000 Received: from cmjg (helo=localhost) by mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 18mjuK-0003Jk-00; Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:22:16 +0000 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 00:22:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Jan Grant X-X-Sender: cmjg@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk To: Matthias Buelow Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mdmfs /tmp and fstab on 5.0 In-Reply-To: <20030222214849.GE16534@moghedien.mukappabeta.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Matthias Buelow wrote: > 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. Semantics. It doesn't mount an mfs filesystem, so it shouldn't be called mount_mfs. I personally think it's a fairly large breach of POLA - this isn't really an argument I subscribe to either. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ ioctl(2): probably the coolest Unix system call in the world To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message