Re: libquota proposal

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:43:10PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> (more context restored)
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:51:48AM +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 ? 

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--