Re: [PATCH 0/5] Change unionfs argument handling policy

[Sergiu Ivanov]

Hello,

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 08:48:56PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Wouldn't even a syntax like ``settrans --unionmount ...'' make sense
>> perhaps?
>
> We briefly discussed the option of extending settrans, though only in
> the context of a library-based rather than translator-based
> implementation...
>
> But now that you mention it, I see that indeed it might be an
> interesting option to let settrans do all the setup, and have the
> translator component only serve as a helper... We definitely need to
> think about that at some point. I hope Sergiu is taking notes :-)

Do you mean that ``settrans --unionmount'' should use unionfs to
actually do the union mount? If so, what shall the mountee sit on? If
not so, I fail to see any special advantage of this syntax compared to
``settrans <node> unionmount <translator>''.

Regards,
scolobb