Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 01:25:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Jon Disnard <diz@linuxpowered.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Annoucning DragonFly BSD! Message-ID: <200307200825.h6K8PZ48020213@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200307181247.h6IClmUv065591@tower.berklix.org> <200307191815.h6JIFKks016721@apollo.backplane.com> <3F19C589.4010007@linuxpowered.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Wouldn't it be possible to achive the same result without the VFS with
:well organized lib subdirs? like "usr/lib/xyzlib1.2/" and
:"usr/lib/xyzlib1.3/" which would maintain the install for any given
:version of a lib? In other words, instead of just dumping all the libs
:into the one place, you simply place them into sub folders instead and
:then link them as needed? Granted this would cause havoc for things like
:LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I never did like the way we dump things in the lib
:dir's, its messy. The VFS idea is interesting, but it like cleaning the
:mess by sending parts of the big mess into another dimention, making it
:a trans-dimentional mess (technically a larger mess). This throws away
:the KISS principle.
Not unless one wanted to make major modifications to all the third
party applications out there, which nobody really wants to do, because
hacking all those programs up makes it difficult to track updates.
:> taken for granted. Begin userland VFSs with the capability of
:> overlaying the entire filesystem space, these environments would be
:> extremely powerful.
:
:I suspect this ability would usefull for other things too, possibly for
:security lock-downs on shell users env's without chrooting them as an
:example.
:
:-Jon
Yes, Exactly.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200307200825.h6K8PZ48020213>