In message <Pine.NEB.4.33.0212191553170.9004-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetc
onnect.net>Bill Studenmund writes

>How do those comments follow from the rest of the thread? We've not been
>talking about file systems.

They're both failings of NetBSD's current label handling.  As we've
agreed, in private email, that label-handling should be redone
``right'' if its redone.  They are issues which the current propopsal
makes *worse*, not better.
 

>> _Requiring_ a userspace daemon, configured by some private-to-NetBSD
>> database/config-file option, is a big step away from how NetBSD has
>> traditionally worked.  Following in the footsteps of AIX and its LVM
>> (as Bill seems to propose) sounds like madness.
>
>???
>
>So what exactly is wrong with an LVM? Have you used one?


Yes, I have. From early AIX to Veritas.  There's no call to be
insulting; What you propose is a subset of an LVM, and LVMs dont
really solve the issues I've brought up.

As I've said, several times now: you and I are focused on *different
problems*; your solutions seem, from my perspective, to make my
problems signficantly *worse*.

I havent yet seen any substantive answer to the following scenarios:

> *  Suppose I have a CF with an MS-dos filesystem that I'd like to
>    mount on-the-fly (via a pcmia slot or a USB reader). Pretend its from
>    a digital camera, if it helps.
>
> * Mounting other Uni* filesystems. I've seen a number of NetBSD developers
>   using multiboot systems with both NetBSD and other OSes. Some are folks
>   like darrenr, who target FreeBSD in addition to NetBSD; I've also seen
>   comments from people with employer-provided laptops running FreeBSD or
>   Linux, with NetBSD in a `spare' partition.


Could you clarify just how your proposal addreses these cases?  If
static (boot-time) case is different from hot-swap media, how does
each work?

Or if some or all of these scenarios are all ``future work'',
to be addressed when we have kernel-to-user/user-to-kernel event
notification in place, could that be stated upfront?