> Please excuse if this is a trivial non-issue (but let me know so I learn something
>:). My impression was that the translators depended upon some bits in the filesystem
>that the Hurd sets differently (and which no other OS really understands yet). Would
>this not cause problems porting sub-hurds in other operating systems? I suppose it
>could be done under a loopback filesystem. I haven't played with those enough to know
>how sturdy they are when it comes to compiling or other intense use. But the Hurd
>would have to be tucked away somewhere out of reach otherwise everytime they fsck
>things break. I seem to remember hearing that tar did not keep track of translators
>yet, so archiving them wouldn't solve this.
A sub-hurd running under a host-os would have access to either a raw partition
where it could put its enhanced ext2fs/ufs if it so wishes. The same holds
true for virtual filesystems located on a file (what you mean by loopback
filesystem). I don't see any (major) problem here.
-Farid.
--
Farid Hajji -- Unix Systems and Network Admin | Phone: +49-2131-67-555
Broicherdorfstr. 83, D-41564 Kaarst, Germany | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - -
Murphy's Law fails only when you try to demonstrate it, and thus succeeds.
_______________________________________________
Help-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
