From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <5d375e920806191329s6c88cd6fred9ff5ce9513b22d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:29:05 +0200 From: Uriel To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <20080619150936.218261E8C45@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <59247.81.47.192.163.1213873686.squirrel@webmail.kix.es> <20080619150936.218261E8C45@holo.morphisms.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] P9p's mount(1) on linux Topicbox-Message-UUID: c35d3a28-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Russ Cox wrote: > Thanks for the patch, Uriel. > > > The http://swtch.com/v9fs script stopped working > a long time ago, and I never bothered to find > out why. I've changed the text on that page, > though clicking on the "date and checksums" > link has always shown that the last update > was October 2006. > > > A few p9p programs--acme, tapefs, vacfs--now > accept a -m option directing them to mount at a > particular place in the directory tree, via 9pfuse. > There is no option to mount via the Linux 9p module. Why not have them use p9p's mount(1)? I wont say anything about the whole fuse debacl^h^hte, I don't think it is productive, but in any case it would be nice if p9p still allowed people to take advantage of v9fs when available, one of the reasons v9fs has sucked so much in the paste is that it basically had zero users and underwent zero testing. Peace and best wishes. uriel