Subject: Re: newfs/newlfs/newfs_msdos (was Re: Some LFS troubles)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/11/1999 22:42:33
[ On , March 11, 1999 at 17:30:42 (-0800), Chris G. Demetriou wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: newfs/newlfs/newfs_msdos (was Re: Some LFS troubles)
> "Kevin P. Neal" <email@example.com> writes:
> > > newfs should just be a link to newfs_ffs... and newfs_xxx for all other
> > > xxx should just be invoked manualls.
> > Wouldn't it be preferrable to be consistent?
> A foolish consistency...
I personally have never found anything foolish about working towards
namespace consistency, even if only for consistency's sake.
Perhaps it's foolish that people commonly make assumptions about
namespace consistency, but that's an entirely different side of the
> for reasonable consistency, lack of directory pollution, and lack of
> name redundancy, i'm for:
> if it really does come to that. then just have top-level scripts that
> do the -t thing and invoke the right program in the right dir.
That's another perfectly logical and quite acceptable solution to the
problem (and it has the advantage of getting rid of the idea that
"users", aka admins, should directly invoke the fstype-specific tools).
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>