David Walser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Such a patch to mount.c I think should be submitted upstream, > it only makes sense.
Well it depends.. it's somewhat ugly and hackish.. > In the meantime, I'm pretty sure the new competitor to > supermount (the name is slipping my mind at the moment) > supports ignoring options that don't apply to the filesystem it > finds, and supermount may also. To achieve that it needs to maintain a list of all options for all filesystems, does it really do that?? -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
