Rogier Wolff wrote:
> So, as long as the stuff is representable on a normal filesystem, you
> get the OPTION of running it off a normal filesystem.
Goes back to the question: why should
all filesystems be forced to look like Ext2?
If you want to kludge a non-ext2 filesystem
onto ext2, you can use ".LinuxDouble" directories
as several people have suggested. But it's just
a hack -- and one that pollutes the namespace and
can lead to orphaned files.
> In your case, if we go with the suggested duality, you wouldn't have
> been able to serve the filesystem to the apples. You'd have to create
> & mount an HFS filesystem. Then, when you would remove the somefile,
> the resource would automatically disappear. Are you sure you want
> that?
Who says that netatalk has to stop doing what it's doing?
Conversely, why must HFS convert to Ext2-palatable format,
and then netatalk do the inverse? Isn't that just a lot
of extra busy work?
> Oh, about orphaned forks: If you happen to want to serve the apples
> from a non-apple filesystem, then you can easily run a nightly deamon
> that finds the orphaned forks, and deletes them.
Yuck! What if Ext2 didn't delete a percentage
of its files until a nightly cron job ran?
> How's this?
>
> find $appefilesystems -name .Appledouble -exec cleanup_resources {} \;
>
> #!/bin/sh
> #cleanup_resources -- By REW
> cd $1
> for i in $*
> do
> if [ ! -f "../$i" ] ; then
> rm "$i"
> fi
> done
mmm... institutionalizing filesystem corruption.
-M
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:33 EST