On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 17:15:40 -0400, Dan Plassche wrote: > > Could you kindly re-diff those changes against the committed version? > > No problem, below is a diff:
Thanks, but to nitpick - this is not against the committed version, that had several markup fixes. Anyway, I've committed the minor wording changes, but I don't feel comfortable committing the big /shlib change which, as far as I can tell, was initially suggested by David. /emul/$foo is a magic place for emulations, the kernel arranges for lookups under /emul/$foo before lookups upder the normal root, etc. So when the proposed wording suggests to put stuff under /emul/bsdos that is NOT magic, that is potentially very confusing. Yes, I know it's also mentioned in the old version (and now that I've noticed, I'm not happy about it), but the new text suggests to add symlinks from /shlib to /emul/bsdos/shlib and to me that looks like a very confusing setup. So ideally the wording should explain that bsdos does NOT have a magic /emul/$foo root like other emulations as it's COMPAT_NOMID, not COMPAT_BSDOS, and the binaries run under COMPAT_NOMID get their files looked up in the normal root namespace, so you have to have a real /shlib in you file system, whatever that is, a directory or a symlink to elsewhere. /emul/bsdos/shlib might be not that bad a choice for $elsewhere, but then the man page has to be super-clear that this is just to follow the convention and there's no magic in that choice, as /emul prefix might imply. -uwe
