Re: should we include mount? (was Re: umount missing ?)
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:29:34PM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
> The main reason I'm not entirely happy about having "mount" is that the
> effects of doing a settrans under Hurd are very different from the effects
> of doing a mount under a Unix clone; in a way, a settrans is like loading a
> kernel driver, doing a mount and making a symlink all in one.
We are not using the mount command at syscall level, you know.
Implementing wrapper scripts like mount, losetup and similar has the
advantage that we (a) show that the Hurd is capable of doing this in terms
of known terms and utilities and (b) that they all are reincarnations of a
single command/feature.
There is nothing wrong about a new user sitting at the first boot and trying
a mount and expecting it to work.
> The point is not that we should not have a "mount", but that the
> documentation should talk about "settrans" and clearly explain that "mount"
> is just a wrapper around settrans.
Yeah.
> On a completely unrelated matter, would it be possible to produce a
> "usermode GNU Mach" like there's a usermode Linux kernel?
it's not even possible, it's implemented, see "boot" command (oh I forgot,
you don't have the Hurd installed).
What's this usermode linux kernel thing? Never heard of that.
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de, marcus@gnu.org PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ brinkmd@debian.org
Reply to: