Joerg Sonnenberger writes: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:56:57AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > > Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:30:47 +0200 > > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> > > Message-ID: <20191023213047.ga73...@bec.de> > > > > | (1) Abuse of symlinks to shuffle the tree somewhere else. IMO whoever > > | wants to do that should be using null mounts and deal with it > > | appropiately in sysinst or whatever on their own. > > > > With that attitude we may as well simply delete symlink support from > > NetBSD and use only null mounts everywhere. That's not workable at all. > > Seriously? We have a well supported mechanism for splitting the base > system across different file systems. It's called mount points. We > support no way to install a system with symlinks in random places, that > has to be done by hand. If a user has such special needs to have such a > special setup with all the associated sources of problems, they can also > manage to update sets by hand and include -P.
nullfs is terrible. i've always known it has the potential to double-cache some file when accessed on both sides.. but i recently had a problem where nullfs mounted system was stopping ffs from freeing deleted files. i couldn't figure out where all my data was hiding. eventually i unmounted the nullfs (which took a couple of minutes) and suddenly i had 80% of my disk back as unused. this is not a reasonable position to take until it's way less stupid of a feature. .mrg.