This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ntsec a mount option?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47:05AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul 14 17:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Jul 14 16:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:10:56PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> >On Jul 14 16:02, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> >> Like a proc filesystem on linux except maybe it would be called
>> >> >> 'cygdrive' or 'drive' or 'msdos-drive'.
>> >> >
>> >> >Isn't that what we have right now?
>> >> >
>> >> > none /mnt cygdrive binary 0 0
>> >> >
>> >> >What would be different?
>> >>
>> >> It's not an actual mount option like "mount -t cygdrive cygdrive
>> >> /cygdrive". I wish I'd implemented like that from the beginning.
>> >
>> >In the fstab file it's already the fs_vfstype field. Unfortunately
>> >`mount -t cygdrive' suffers from -t being used for textmode mounts.
>>
>> Maybe we should repurpose that option for 1.7.
>
>Sure. Text and binmode are available as -o option anyway, same for
>the other options. Backward compatibility is probably not really
>important, given that mount won't be used as much in future.
>
>What about the mount -m option? That doesn't seem to make much sense
>anymore, given that you just can copy the fstab files now.
I guess we could get rid of that too but it might almost make sense to
make it dump fstab entries. Then you'd catch any mounts you've made
recently that aren't in the fstab.
>Hmm, along the same lines, practically all umount options don't make
>much sense anymore.
>
>> (along with text-mode mounts?)
>
>Repurpose textmode mounts? I'm not sure I understand...
"Repurpose" == "obliterate"
cgf