Re: fakeroot inquiry

[nisse@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller)]

Marcus Brinkmann <marcus@gnu.org> writes:

> No, of course not.  The main reason is that two Hurds (we don't call
> them subhurds anywmore, they are more peer than parent/child, you might
> call them neighbourhurd) are too isolated :)  they are really two
> distinct Hurd systems running in parallel, and the only connection is
> that the second Hurd gets a faked master device port so when it opens
> "console" it gets a faked console device.

Ah, the fake master device port is already there. That's excellent. Is
it the boot process in the parent that responds to the child's device
requests, or some other component?

> Well, you could fake an ethernet card, eth0 if you want.  Another way
> is to allow some bindings between the two Hurds, eg when looking up
> /servers/socket/2 in the one Hurd, you are really looking up the one
> in the other Hurd.  This is a firmlink, and the only problem is getting
> the root filesystem ports exchanged.

Providing a "fake" ethernet device (it should not really be a card,
it's ought to be a higher level emulation than bochs or vmware) seems
cleaner and more natural.

Links between arbitrary nodes in filesystems living in different hurds
(of which /servers/socket/2 is just one example, and / another) would
definitely be useful too, but that seems like a more delicate kind of
interaction.

As for terminology, I think it makes sense to talk about some kind of
parent-child relationship when one hurd controls the device accesses
of another.

Regards,
/Niels


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org