Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:27:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: sheldonh@uunet.co.za Cc: dima@unixfreak.org, kris@obsecurity.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mount_mfs (Re: smbfs) Message-ID: <200105251527.f4PFREB40977@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <91259.990800808@axl.fw.uunet.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 May, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 May 2001 09:34:16 -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > >> Why can't that program _replace_ mount_mfs? And assume the name too? > > The objection that impressed me the last time this was suggested is > that it's totally counter-intuitive to have a binary called mount_mfs > that doesn't mount an MFS filesystem. Well, for all intents and purposes, it does. It creates the device backed by swap and newfs-es it. > Rather, it does all sorts of icky extra stuff to achieve a rather > specific goal. The goal of creating a virtual file-system in memory. What's MFS? > I still don't see why an rc.conf knob specifically for /tmp isn't > sufficient. That's what people want this for. As said before, /tmp is too specific. What if I want /tmp2 or /usr/obj to be there for whatever crazy reason? Also, this will require me to modify the /etc/fstab that served me for years. > Others can read the excellent documentation supplied in mdconfig(8), > which is appropriately cross-referenced from md(4), which is the > manual page for the device concerned. And code their own /usr/local/etc/rc.d/mount_memory.sh? Why? Is not /etc/fstab a better place for file-system tables? > Logical, orthogonal and pretty damn easy, when you look at the > EXAMPLES section. :-) -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105251527.f4PFREB40977>