John Baldwin wrote: >On Friday 29 September 2006 12:19, Scott Long wrote: > > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >> >>>On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Eric Anderson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what >>>>>seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660. Is there any reason not to move it? >>>>> Curious mostly.. >>>>> >>>>>Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Inertia, mostly. And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs? Let the >>>>bi-yearly debate begin..... >>>> >>>>Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up >>>>fairly regularly. We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though, >>>>so thanks for giving it a kickstart. >>>> >>>> >>>We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. >>> >>> >Only > > >>>cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs and >>> >>> >ufs > > >>>alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra >>> >>> >isofs > > >>>directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point. >>> >>> >>> >>What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?. And >>don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch! Ah, I love the >>smell of fresh paint in the morning. Smells like.... napalm. >> >> > >Baby steps aren't hard. :) Back when I first made rumblings about this sort >of thing we didn't have a sys/fs at all, but now we do and over time we've >actually moved most of our filesystems into it. :) > > > there was a sys/miscfs which could have been used.. Matt Dillon took the oportunity to redo the tree in DF. I wonder how that's working out?Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 19:45:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:00 UTC