From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Installed Plan 9, now what? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:29:05 EST." <200312090129.hB91T5l23935@augusta.math.psu.edu> From: "Russ Cox" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14305.1070933786.1@t40.swtch.com> Message-Id: Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:36:26 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9da24cbc-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > "Russ Cox" writes: > > > > > No, it's not, it's just for updating from sources. And even if it were, > > > it's not used by anything else. > > > > here's a better question. if we fix things so that > > the pull files always use 9fs boot instead of 9fs kfs, > > is there any benefit to /dist/replica/site? > > Bearing in mind that right now there's no benefit to site, since it > doesn't exist, this isn't fair -- the question is what the benefit would be if it were there. > the only thing I could thing of would be to override > applyopts (e.g., to strip out -u). Other users might come along, > such as doing the `srv -AWP' trick, etc. Other than that? No, not > right now, anyway. Since it's a zero-cost thing, plugging it in for > the future wouldn't hurt much, though. well, no. it does add to the complexity of the system, and as presotto said there are a lot of redirects already. i intended from the very beginning for people to customize /dist/replica/plan9 to suit their local systems. if there are more sensible defaults, i'd rather get them done right in the files to begin with than require everyone to edit /dist/replica/site. russ