From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:17:01 -0500 From: "Eric Van Hensbergen" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10807081425i71388690y65c9eb888b443045@mail.gmail.com> <4873FFCB.7040908@gmail.com> <13426df10807081713n22648095t7c0fa7915f4ce797@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] why not Lvx for Plan 9? Topicbox-Message-UUID: e066c92c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:13 PM, ron minnich wrote: > > When I first got v9fs working, 1998, I tried mounting file systems > over 9p. What a mess. Things just broke in weird ways. There is code > that really wants a symlink to be there and readable. I can't even > recall all the places, but they're there. And things break if you > mount and don't have symlinks. > > Which is why I put readlink etc. in my v9fs, and why the .U version is > in today's linux kernels. > And now you need extended attributes in order to support SElinux or RedHat behaves weirdly. It really never does end.