Hello, On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <olafbuddenha...@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
