On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 06:32:10PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 01:52:50PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, <olafbuddenha...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > 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... > [...] > > Do you mean that ``settrans --unionmount'' should use unionfs to > > actually do the union mount? > > Perhaps. The ideas are all very vague still. > > > If so, what shall the mountee sit on? > > Obviously, we need some helper that handles the internal node.
I guess we still have to discuss the details, if you don't mind. (Probably, on the IRC, even). > > If not so, I fail to see any special advantage of this syntax compared > > to ``settrans <node> unionmount <translator>''. > > The obvious advantage is that it is simpler and more intuitive for the > user. I think we have to decide whether this advantage is worth the effort of modifying settrans and (apparently) adding some helpers for handling the internal node... > Not sure about the technical merits yet... I'm not either... Regards, scolobb
