From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:53:20 +0200
From: Sascha Retzki <sretzki@gmx.de>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] replica's _* files
Message-ID: <20060418125320.GA464@routi.local.net>
References: <444402F1.9040301@gmail.com>
	<077d0d5f265520782ac4ebef832f7cea@swtch.com>
	<775b8d190604180244o71d59d15lb1596481daed3ba2@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <775b8d190604180244o71d59d15lb1596481daed3ba2@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r535 (NetBSD)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3a3ef062-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:44:47PM +1000, Bruce Ellis wrote:
> unfortunately this method does'nt solve the problem.
> [...]
> i'd rather them be rename in _i++.
>

Actually I reboot after an update automatically, exactly because of this
problem; I don't see a reason for a renaming in the first place.
Informing the user that he shall reboot should be enough.


And, did I get it right, you rename files which may be executed, so how
do these actually know about that? Something needs to be changed so
that pages are loaded from _rio, else that prefixing-part is rendered
useless.


So it is probably just me who sees "bloat" here... my two cents