On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:09:18PM +0200, Bjoern Koenig wrote: > Hello, > > first of all: > > THIS FILESYSTEM TYPE IS NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED > (READ: IT DOESN'T WORK) AND USING IT MAY, IN FACT, > DESTROY DATA ON YOUR SYSTEM. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. > BEWARE OF DOG. SLIPPERY WHEN WET.
Right, but that's only the short answer: "it's broken". The more in-depth answer is that while users may want to use them in production now: null and other pseudo file systems may still require some work for prime-time use and it's a valid concern for the platform. Those that raise the point aren't being unreasonable, I'm of the opinion it should be fixed at some point soon. Having said that: As to whether it belongs in -stable now: yes people are warned not to use it, why not just remove it? I think one argument to keep it in is for completeness: nullfs or similar belongs in the base (in BSD systems) and taking it out seems like the wrong answer from a technical standpoint. Also placing code in the corner won't fix it: even if it is made to work under 5, many want to use it in 4 still. ;) > My experience: > > I had much less problems with unionfs -b, even with FreeBSD 4.10, to mount > for example /usr/ports into a jail temporarily. But for everything else you > should never use it. What are some other approaches than overlays for jailed environments? Use NFS instead? > Bjoern -- Allan Fields, AFRSL - http://afields.ca 2D4F 6806 D307 0889 6125 C31D F745 0D72 39B4 5541
pgpov4bvwefva.pgp
Description: PGP signature
