Subject: Re: /etc/daily and /scratch
To: None <email@example.com>
From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/25/1996 16:36:09
Darren Reed writes:
> I'd be a little less outraged if /scratch had of been mounted locally, BUT
> it wasn't.
> Anyway, I think this debate is likely to get down to personal choice and
> preferences if it goes on as above for much longer.
I don't understand the problem. Now that you know about the behavior,
you can either edit your copy of /etc/daily or not mount things on
/scratch. Whats the big deal?
the "big deal" is that netbsd deleted something it shouldn't have.
what about the other people who this happens to ? i've been using
netbsd for over 2 years now and i wasn't aware of it -- i'd have
been extremely pissed off if i didn't realise that netbsd was
going to delete things in /scratch and i used it.
it would be excusable (but still _wrong_, to me) if it was documented
in heir(7) -- but it isn't.
personally, i think we should:
1. change it to _only_ work for local file systems.
2. document the behavriour in hier(7).
3. somehow, let people know (more than hier(7)).
(3) is less important, but, i think the other 2 are non-negotiable.