Hello, On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 07:01:37AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:14:56PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > > 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.
OK, this is clear. > > 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... It might be so, but I do agree that the choice of implementation approach should be backed by more serious thinking. Regards, scolobb
