[9fans] +t and bind (Was Re: Thinkpad T61 Installation Experience)

[David Romano <unobe@cpan.org>]

erik quanstrom wrote on Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:26:40AM MST:
> as i see it, the argument for +t is that the files remain in the usual
> heirarchy.
I think I understand.  So basically I don't need to worry about which
directories or files are bind(1)'d to others under the hierarchy, and the
hierarchy persists beyond reboot/restart.

I initially thought that the +t problem something that bind(1) could
definitely solve, i.e., bind a directory or file within a hierarchy to another
filesystem's directory or file. I think Cinap mentioned something about
binding each user's /tmp directory to a directory in the "other" filesystem.
I suppose that's the double-edged sword with having the dynamic capabilities
of bind(1).

If the problem is really one of persistence, is there any benefit to having
bind optionally record its last bind mapping for a particular path (within
each namespace or within each union directory)?  Or rather than modify
bind(1), just have a separate program that handles it?  Would that make the
entire process needlessly complex and raise other issues?

- David

--
David Romano .:. unobe@cpan.org