re: Tar extract behaviour changed

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

Joerg Sonnenberger writes:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:56:57AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> >     Date:        Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:30:47 +0200
> >     From:        Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>
> >     Message-ID:  <20191023213047.GA73056%bec.de@localhost>
> > 
> >   | (1) Abuse of symlinks to shuffle the tree somewhere else. IMO whoever
> >   | wants to do that should be using null mounts and deal with it
> >   | appropiately in sysinst or whatever on their own.
> > 
> > With that attitude we may as well simply delete symlink support from
> > NetBSD and use only null mounts everywhere.   That's not workable at all.
> 
> Seriously? We have a well supported mechanism for splitting the base
> system across different file systems. It's called mount points. We
> support no way to install a system with symlinks in random places, that
> has to be done by hand. If a user has such special needs to have such a
> special setup with all the associated sources of problems, they can also
> manage to update sets by hand and include -P.

nullfs is terrible.  i've always known it has the potential
to double-cache some file when accessed on both sides.. but
i recently had a problem where nullfs mounted system was
stopping ffs from freeing deleted files.  i couldn't figure
out where all my data was hiding.  eventually i unmounted
the nullfs (which took a couple of minutes) and suddenly i
had 80% of my disk back as unused.

this is not a reasonable position to take until it's way
less stupid of a feature.


.mrg.