Re: [9front] ramfs usage

[Romano <me+unobe@fallglow.com>]

On Wed Jun 19 14:23:38 -0700 2024, moody@posixcafe.org wrote:
> My vote would be to keep things as is.
> 
> While it is not a great precedent, a large chunk of code
> from what I've seen don't throw errors for nonsensical combinations.
> If doing things from scratch I would think perhaps its worth the effort
> to check for, but it is probably too late to set this precedent and modifying
> programs after the fact. I just don't want this to be the start of this happening
> to every program.

Thanks for the look-thru, Moody. Yeah, that makes sense. To be honest, this
was me going through to understand exactly how ramfs worked and coming across some
puzzling behavior (like the ordering of -s & -m making a difference), and then
taking more time to figure out how it matched up with the man page and addressing
it so that I don't have to be concerned if I specify -s or -m first.

> A lot of these man page changes seem like a general rewrite, in particular the
> change of "option" to "flag" which feels off.

Yeah, it was really to align all to either "option" or "flag". For instance,
before the change some (-u, -D) were described as "option" while others
(-p, -i, -s) were described as "flag". Maybe I'm missing a nuance there.

> It just doesn't seem the benefits outweigh the cost of the churn to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Moody

Okay, thanks, Moody. At least I learned something by working through it.
I do appreciate the consideration.

> On 6/19/24 15:36, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
> > Hm. I'll talke a look at this; I wonder if it's too late
> > to clean up the interaction of the flags. Probably :(

Thanks, Ori.