Re: libquota proposal

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:11:21PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
 >>>>>>>> (also, edquota and repquota seem fs-independent to me...)
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> no, they're not: they can directly the quota1 file specified in the
 >>>>>>> fstab if quotactl fails or the filesystem is not mounted.
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> That's a bug, or more accurately legacy behavior that doesn't need to
 >>>>>> be supported. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> of course it's not nice. But we're talking about existing code calling 
 >>>>> the
 >>>>> legacy quotactl. If we're going to change it to not check the fstab
 >>>>> options any more, we may as well change it to use libquota.
 >>>> 
 >>>> I don't understand - surely edquota and repquota go through your
 >>>> proplib interface now?
 >>> 
 >>> We were talking about code like netatalk, which is why I propose
 >>> a public library for this.
 >>
 >> Uh, now I really don't understand.
 > 
 > what don't you understand ? 

You said that edquota and repquota aren't fs-independent; I asked why,
given that they should be going through the new quota API, and you
suddenly started talking about legacy code and netatalk.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost