From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <0F3972F5-D44B-4231-97FA-C6CE871B032B@gmail.com> <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:05:30 +0800 Message-ID: <140e7ec30907141205qaa2350g92a7ec5c1f0347b7@mail.gmail.com> From: sqweek To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2079da94-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2009/7/13 Eric Van Hensbergen : > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 3:24 AM, sqweek wrote: >> =C2=A0Anyway, note that if you auth you'll need supporting software from >> p9p also. Factotum and srv -a, in particular, then give v9fs a -o >> trans=3Dunix. > > Any chance we can get fossil integration into 9mount directly? =C2=A0Most= of > the code is already available in some p9p code that lucho wrote called > amount. =C2=A0It would complicate build a bit because you need libraries = from > p9p, but perhaps it could be conditional compilation. I'm not too fond of the idea... It's not as though amount adds any new functionality over srv+mount[1], and I hate throwing more code at a problem when equivalent code exists elsewhere. Having to introduce a link time dependency on p9p doesn't help convince me either - the current arrangement seems to provide a decent seperation of responsibility. The mount.9p symlink sounds pretty reasonable though, I'll get around to that sometime. [1] actually back when I read over amount I even concluded that it used the same trick as srv -a just with a pipe instead of unix socket! failed to notice the Tversion/Tattach subtlety. is it really worth the coupling to go back to that approach? -sqweek