On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:22 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
>
>> At the time, I was actually in favor of a separate stowfs which were
>> just using common code for unionfs, but politics and other rather
>> meaningless reasons brought it into the way it
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:37:23AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:07:18AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
>
> > > I do agree that it's counter-intuitive. Please note that the stow
> > > func
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> At the time, I was actually in favor of a separate stowfs which were
> just using common code for unionfs, but politics and other rather
> meaningless reasons brought it into the way it is now.
Really? That's interesting -- I
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:07:18AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> > I do agree that it's counter-intuitive. Please note that the stow
> > functionality was mostly meant for the GNU system as a base for a --
> > rather complex I'
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:38:26PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Sergiu
> Ivanov wrote:
> > I wonder whether there is still the necessity to keep things as they
> > are. I can see that the files in which you are mentioned as the
> > author date back to 2005
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:23:38PM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Sergiu
> Ivanov wrote:
>
> > I'm glad you feel okay about my suggestion :-) However, I'm not sure I
> > can understand correctly what you mean by ``remove this feature''? Do
> > you refer to
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Sergiu
Ivanov wrote:
> Oh, sorry, I should have asked *you* in the first place :-( Please,
> forgive my absent-mindedness :-(
Nah, it's OK. Thomas and antrik are the right guys to ask in general,
since they're following your work and the Hurd much more than I do.
Hello,
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:38:26PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Sergiu
> Ivanov wrote:
> > Thomas, antrik, what do you think? Could it be acceptable to give the
> > stow pattern matching feature a more intuitive face?
>
> I am pretty sure they are favor
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Sergiu
Ivanov wrote:
> I see... It has never occurred to me that unionfs could be used in a
> packaging system :-)
There are things you don't really want to know about the Hurd. :-)
> I wonder whether there is still the necessity to keep things as they
> are. I
Hi Sergiu,
I do agree that it's counter-intuitive. Please note that the stow
functionality was mostly meant for the GNU system as a base for a --
rather complex I'd say -- packaging system.
The idea was that the first level after the stow directory was the
package, and we were matching against pa
Hello,
Thank you for the swift response!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> I do agree that it's counter-intuitive. Please note that the stow
> functionality was mostly meant for the GNU system as a base for a --
> rather complex I'd say -- packaging system.
>
> Th
Hello,
Recently I have been browsing the code implementing the stowing
feature in unionfs it struck me that I cannot figure out the reason
for it to be implemented in the way it is.
Normally the stowing feature works as follows: one starts unionfs in
the following way:
$ settrans -a unionfs --
12 matches
Mail list logo
