Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?


                                        Dima Dorfman
                                        [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to