Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: John Nemeth <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/11/1998 01:55:03
On Oct 6,  1:12pm, der Mouse wrote:
} >> It would be a good thing to have available.  It would be an
} >> extremely obnoxious thing to have no alternative to.
} > I think the current existing approach offered by mount(2) is very
} > much an acceptable alternative.
} Then I think we are in furious agreement, lacking only

     I'm not sure we need to go down to the filesystem level.  Disk
labeling may be enough.  Although, going to the filesystem level would
be a logical extension.  Maybe it could be an optional extension (i.e.
mount -p /usr) {-p is for partition, -f, which would be for
filesystem, is already taken}.

} - Either decide to use the last-mounted-on string from the superblock
}    or find a place to stash the filesystem label string (I see no
}    reason not to go with the former)

     Me neither; especially since changing the superblock/disklabel is
a major change.

} - An interface so that mount(8) can get a list of all disks on the
}    system (to go searching for filesystems on) - anyone for
}    /kern/disks/? :-)


} - A way to resolve ambiguities, or else decide to just error out (but
}    remember that when multiple partitions begin at the same place, they
}    will appear to contain the same superblock)

     I think it should just error out.  Any heuristic you use to
resolve conflicts will be prone to getting it wrong.

} - Someone to actually implement it
} I am emphatically not volunteering for any of this.  (I may implement

     Me neither.  Apart from discussing it and throwing out ideas, I
don't have much interest in it.

}-- End of excerpt from der Mouse