On Wed Oct 27 10, Juli Mallett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 14:48, Alexander Best <arun...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed Oct 27 10, Doug Barton wrote: > >> What may be a better approach is to confirm the fs' that DO work, list > >> them, and then add something to the effect of, "This feature is unlikely > >> to work on other file systems." > > > > i don't think that's a good approach, because then the rm(1) has to be > > changed > > everytime freebsd gets a new fs which works with the -P option. i think it's > > better to list which fs semantics DON'T work. so if freebsd gets a new fs, > > users simply have to know which semantics the new fs is based on and can > > decide > > for themselves whether the -P switch will work or not. > > > > so far the -P option doesn't seem to work for: > > > > - COW fs and/or > > - fs with a variable block size and/or > > - fs which do journaling > > I really don't want to ask the average user to know whether their > filesystem is in-place block-rewriting or not. That's just silly. In > this case Doug is right; I don't think FreeBSD gets new file systems > as often as you think that it would be a big burden. Having a general > description of the types of filesystem it can work on might be useful, > but a list seems more useful still. Listing the types it can't work > on is backwards because that requires a user to understand the > dichotomy as well as knowing what kind of filesystem they don't have / > do have. And for them to never get it backwards. At least mount(8) > will tell you what filesystem you are using; there's no tool to tell > you the properties of your filesystem, and good luck easily-mining an > answer to the question of whether your filesystem fits into that > category from a manpage without introducing substantial confusion. > > Maybe there should be substantial confusion around this feature, > though, since that's what it seems to be there for.
how about fusefs? i think there's an ongoing disussion about importing it into HEAD on arch@ or f...@. won't this bring in support for a number of new filesystems which then all have to be documented in the rm(1) manual? but if in fact all working fs should get mentioned...what are they? - UFS1/2 - ext2fs - FAT12/16/32 ...any more? what about memory backed fs like tmpfs? cheers. alex > > Juli. -- a13x _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
