"Daniel C. Sobral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > > I actually wrote a short program that emulates *all* of mount_mfs's
> > > umpteen options with md, disklabel, and newfs, but nobody seemed
> > > interested. My choice of name (mount_md) wasn't particuarly good,
> > > either. Look at the -hackers and cvs-all archives around late January
> > > and early February for the discussions. I still have that program, and
> > > it works great, so perhaps I should make it a port (comments?).
> > Why can't that program _replace_ mount_mfs? And assume the name too?
> Because md isn't a filesystem. A much better solution would be create a
> program that reads an /etc/md.conf, in which size, fs, mount point and
> whatever are listed, and call mount on all that stuff.
It shouldn't necessarily mount it; we have fstab for that. That said,
this has all been discussed to death before. To summerize: A config
file parsed by mdconfig is evil because it isn't clear how far it
should go (just mdconfig? how about disklabel? newfs?). If it goes
too far, it becomes useless for some things. If it doesn't go far
enough, it doesn't adequately solve the problem. A mount_mfs-like
program is evil because 'md' isn't a filesystem.
I've implemented both before (mdconfig config file, and mount_mfs-like
program). Look at the archvies for -hackers and cvs-all around early
February. Personally, I don't care which solution ends up being used;
I just think the current situation isn't good (and as much as I think
Sheldon's /tmp rc.conf patch is a good idea, it only solves half the
problem). I also plan to make a port out of the mount_mfs-like
program for those who just *have* to have a mount_mfs-like interface.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message