> > If you don't share my preference then it would be good to make new > NFS just 'nfs' everywhere (sysctls, fstype, etc.), so that we won't > end > up with 'newnfs' in random places in five years from now. What you do > with old NFS is less important to me:) > As you'll see from the post I just sent (about 5sec before this showed up in my box), I don't mind the idea of the two clients not being concurrently usable. (I did have that semi-hypothetical example, but I, personally, don't think it's likely. I had assumed that others would think this is "required", but if not, that's fine with me.)
My problem is that I don't know how to deal with two modules with the same name. (Getting rid of the old one as a module and making people have to compile it into their kernel solves that.) If both still need to be loadable modules, I think I'm going to need some help w.r.t. how to make that work. (The mount syscall tries to load it. The /etc/rc.d/nfsclient script forces it to be loaded and who knows what else. If there are two of them, then???) rick _______________________________________________ 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"
