[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

hurd does NOT need /hurd

First, some problems about /hurd that have come up on irc just now.

1) is /hurd versioned?  Or is /hurd a 'special' filesystem(kinda like devfs
   for linux), that lists the available services that have been compiled into
   the kernel?

2) Could the ideas that the items placed in /hurd be useful outside of hurd?
   Ie, could other operating systems make use of translators?

Now, for some other analogies, to existing practices, showing that /hurd is
not needed, *at all*.

In the current FHS, there is documentation about /lib/modules.  Currently,
this describes Linux drivers.  However, I see no reason it can't be used for
hurd as well(hurd purists will say that because Linux came up with it, it
*CAN'T* be good, so they don't want to use it).

However, unlike /hurd, /lib/modules does not contain any reference to the
kernel that is being run.  I'd much rather have hurd use /lib/modules, instead
of tainting file system layouts with special /linux, /hurd, /freebsd crap.

I also wonder if the idea of filesystem translation could be useful outside of
hurd.  In fact, there already is use, in Linux.  Think user-space nfs(a
kernel-based nfs module talking to a user-space nfs daemon).  cfs works this
way, as does probably sfs.

Also, autofs is a simple form of this as well.

It's just that linux doesn't have a well-defined way of having translators run
as normal users(most run as root, or something).

So, why then do we really need /hurd?  What are the *real* reasons?

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

Reply to: