Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?

John Baldwin wrote:

On Friday 29 September 2006 12:19, Scott Long wrote:


John Baldwin wrote:


On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote:



Eric Anderson wrote:



I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660. Is there any reason not to move it? Curious mostly..

Eric




Inertia, mostly. And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs? Let the
bi-yearly debate begin.....

Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up
fairly regularly. We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though,
so thanks for giving it a kickstart.


We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past.

Only

cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs and

ufs

alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra

isofs

directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point.



What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?. And
don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch! Ah, I love the
smell of fresh paint in the morning. Smells like.... napalm.



Baby steps aren't hard. :) Back when I first made rumblings about this sort of thing we didn't have a sys/fs at all, but now we do and over time we've actually moved most of our filesystems into it. :)




there was a sys/miscfs which could have been used..

Matt Dillon took the oportunity to redo the tree in DF.
I wonder how that's working out?

_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"