Re: New compat_bsdos.8 Manpage

[Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 17:15:40 -0400, Dan Plassche wrote:

> > Could you kindly re-diff those changes against the committed version?
> 
> No problem, below is a diff:

Thanks, but to nitpick - this is not against the committed version,
that had several markup fixes.

Anyway, I've committed the minor wording changes, but I don't feel
comfortable committing the big /shlib change which, as far as I can
tell, was initially suggested by David.

/emul/$foo is a magic place for emulations, the kernel arranges for
lookups under /emul/$foo before lookups upder the normal root, etc.
So when the proposed wording suggests to put stuff under /emul/bsdos
that is NOT magic, that is potentially very confusing.  Yes, I know
it's also mentioned in the old version (and now that I've noticed, I'm
not happy about it), but the new text suggests to add symlinks from
/shlib to /emul/bsdos/shlib and to me that looks like a very confusing
setup.

So ideally the wording should explain that bsdos does NOT have a magic
/emul/$foo root like other emulations as it's COMPAT_NOMID, not
COMPAT_BSDOS, and the binaries run under COMPAT_NOMID get their files
looked up in the normal root namespace, so you have to have a real
/shlib in you file system, whatever that is, a directory or a symlink
to elsewhere.  /emul/bsdos/shlib might be not that bad a choice for
$elsewhere, but then the man page has to be super-clear that this is
just to follow the convention and there's no magic in that choice, as
/emul prefix might imply.

-uwe