Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:14:56PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:44:41AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@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...] -- > > > MOUNTEE_CMD_LINE > > > > 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... -antrik-
