Subject: Re: vnconfig is broken (was: vnd is broken?)
To: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: current-users
Date: 05/11/2005 17:30:20
--XOIedfhf+7KOe/yw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:52:43PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> [Thus spake Rui Paulo ("RP: ") 10:29pm...]
>=20
> Okay, that's done.  Now, can anyone think of a compelling reason that
> a full pathname MUST be specified while configuring a device, i.e. why
> the config program can't be bothered to prepend the CWD in the case of
> a relative path?  Or do we already do this?  (last time I did a vnd,
> it demanded an absolute pathname.)

Uhm, it looks like vnconfig uses opendisk in all places, so it will be=20
quite happy with a relative path that works.

Take care,

Bill

--XOIedfhf+7KOe/yw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCgqObWz+3JHUci9cRAlREAJ9lDkJT4dZ0FsA4yUrb+V4+pateYQCghKtx
MuOQoIyZGEd6nqUsQBwpDqY=
=vQyj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XOIedfhf+7KOe/yw--