From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 29 21:24:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF88716A7BF for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:24:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01FB43D4C for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:24:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8TLOFdY018701; Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Scott Long Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:18:09 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <451ADC21.50206@centtech.com> <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> <451D4787.4050309@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <451D4787.4050309@samsco.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200609291618.09492.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:24:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/1950/Thu Sep 28 10:11:54 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:24:31 -0000 On Friday 29 September 2006 12:19, Scott Long wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote: > > > >>Eric Anderson wrote: > >> > >>>I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what > >>>seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660. Is there any reason not to move it? > >>> Curious mostly.. > >>> > >>>Eric > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Inertia, mostly. And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs? Let the > >>bi-yearly debate begin..... > >> > >>Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up > >>fairly regularly. We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though, > >>so thanks for giving it a kickstart. > > > > > > We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. Only > > cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs and ufs > > alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra isofs > > directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point. > > > > What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?. And > don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch! Ah, I love the > smell of fresh paint in the morning. Smells like.... napalm. Baby steps aren't hard. :) Back when I first made rumblings about this sort of thing we didn't have a sys/fs at all, but now we do and over time we've actually moved most of our filesystems into it. :) -- John Baldwin