[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add the ``--mount'' command line option

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add the ``--mount'' command line option
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:01:37 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:14:56PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:44:41AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 01:43:42AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:

> > > If only one --mount option is allowed, what about a syntax like
> > > this one, separating the mountee command line with two dashes?
> > > 
> > >     unionfs [OPTION...] --mount [FILESYSTEMS...] --
> > 
> > That is similar to what the first patch did. It's pretty ugly IMHO.
> OTOH, it is easier to do normal argument parsing for the mountee
> command line. 

That's not a very good argument IMHO. Keeping things simple is a good
thing; but usually it's not a good tradeoff, if things became ugly from
the user's point of view...

> Also, I'd still stand for creating a ``stand-alone'' unionmount
> translator

That's definitely still an option, but I refuse to decide on that now.

> Note, that using something like settrans --unionmount could also solve
> the argument parsing problem, since the mountee command line could be
> parsed by settrans, then the mountee started by settrans, too, the
> corresponding unioning translator being expected to only merge the
> filesystems.

While not a terribly good argument by itself, this is perhaps some
indication that implementing it in settrans might indeed be the most
natural approach...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]