Subject: Re: SGI XFS filesystem
To: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/28/1999 15:41:21
email@example.com (Christos Zoulas) writes:
> There are some implications of changing the layout:
> - many user programs will need to be modified to include the
> correct headers
> - kernel sources will have to be moved
Sure, but every few years you've gotta have a bunch of churn! how
long has it been since sys/arch was created? 8-)
> I personally like something like fs/ufs, fs/nfs, fs/ntfs... I don't
> think that classify them further serves any useful purpose except
> adding bytes to source files.
Actually, i think the 'ufs' thing is a bad idea. i'd like to see:
etc. At least things would be nice and consistent that way.
> And finally, we can go the solaris direction and move all the fs related
> commands into separate directories and leave only the central command
Actually, with the exception of the directories, we're going in that
direction already... 8-)
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.