On 15 March 2002 09:27, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > Does this mean umsdos can be layered atop of wider range of filesystems
> > than just msdos? That would be cool.
>
> Yes, but what's cool about it? If not for the fact that there are weird
> setups that actually use umsdos (i.e. compatibility reasons), the best
> way to deal with it would be rm -rf... If underlying filesystem has
> normal semantics - you don't need anything, if it doesn't... I'd suggest
> to use combination of tar(1) and ramfs. At least that way you get full
> Unix semantics - no mess with rename breaking links, etc.
Well, I initially come here from DOS/Win world and in fact actually used
umsdos for some time (heck, it's still installed on one abandoned box).
But I presume there are other worlds (maybe Mac?) with filesystems unsuited
for Linux root fs (like fat), why invent u[fs] for them too?
OTOH it means extra effort in umsdos rewrite, and since I don't do that
effort, I'd better shut up now.
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 22:00:20 EST