On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:52:23AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> I guess this has been discussed somewhere else already, but I still
> wonder what one should do when the files in a directory are somehow used
> as information (e.g., backup every host for which there is a direcory
> named after the hose. darn, our backup fails every night because lost
> +found is not reachable). Slightly constructed example, but we should
> provide the user with an alternative.
Designed that way on the root filesystem? I disbelieve.... sounds
like a bogusly designed application.
> Might be it possible to allow for an alternative name of .lost+found?
> Would that make sense? And what would need to be changed for that,
> besides e2fsck?
IMHO, seems like it's too much customizability. There is such a
thing, you know. To take an extreme example, it would clearly be a
Dumb Idea to make the pathname separator ('/') be customizeable.
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
