On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:15:59 -0700
"Gordon Waidhofer" <gww@traakan.com> wrote:

> I'll repeat myself. It's easy to get myopic about
> this stuff. Sure, anybody can invent a namespace
> trick (filesystem feature) to access subfiles.
> Big whoop. Now, what about tar(1) and tar(5) and
> NFSv4 and....... Does interoperability/interchange
> still count?

And I have just wondered about mtree, verified exec, I guess that
subfiles would have to be taken into account as well?  As for userspace
implementations that hash directory trees for later comparisions, they
also probably might want to detect subfiles changes tied to a file, if
that is to happen, it shows the importance of a common set of standard
syscalls to do so, I guess (that conversation about the API
standarization earlier, it indeed seems a crucial step in the process of
supporting subfiles)

> Yes, there is already some divergence. Divergence
> is bad. Convergence and interoperability are good.
> At the very least, we should pick a method that
> enjoys some measure of deployment and has answered
> the interoperability/interchange questions and
> follow it. It is not only unecessary to invent an
> answer, it is likely counterproductive.

Absolutely


Matt

-- 
Note: Please only reply on the list since other mail is blocked by default.
Private messages from your address can be allowed by first asking, however.