From owner-freebsd-current Fri May 25 22:44:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C7337B423 for ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:44:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from spike.unixfreak.org (spike [63.198.170.139]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1893E28; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:44:37 -0700 (PDT) To: Kris Kennaway Cc: Sheldon Hearn , Mikhail Teterin , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mount_mfs (Re: smbfs) In-Reply-To: <20010525222003.A70469@xor.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on "Fri, 25 May 2001 22:20:03 -0700" Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 22:44:37 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010526054437.1C1893E28@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kris Kennaway writes: > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 04:26:48PM +0200, 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. Rather, it does all sorts of icky > > extra stuff to achieve a rather specific goal. FWIW, I agree with this. It mounts *ufs*, not *mfs*. It just puts the ufs on a memory disk; thus, the name is inappropriate, but the idea is still good. > > I still don't see why an rc.conf knob specifically for /tmp isn't > > sufficient. That's what people want this for. 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. Logical, orthogonal and pretty damn easy, when you look at > > the EXAMPLES section. :-) How about make a port of out the mount_mfs compatible program and committing your (Sheldon's) /tmp rc.conf patch? Those who only need /tmp (and as you say, this is the majority) have what they need, we don't have [needless] stuff in the base system, and those who need something that pretends to be mount_mfs can get that from the ports. Does this sound good? > Someone please just fix it :) Erm, perhaps you could elaborate on "it"? Would the above suggestion suit you? Regards, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message