Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet From: Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: unionfs usage without "option UNION" Date: 30 Aug 1995 10:44:57 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Lines: 9 Sender: rsanders@interbev.mindspring.com Message-ID: <87but778nq.fsf@interbev.mindspring.com> References: <DE3uo1.1Cr@reptiles.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: interbev.mindspring.com In-reply-to: jim@reptiles.org's message of Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:50:24 GMT X-Newsreader: (ding) Gnus v0.99.27 On Wed, 30 Aug 1995 03:50:24 GMT, jim@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) said: > i would assume that union fs's should not work at all if not defined. > but they kinda do. mount may be loading the appropriate LKM (loadable kernel module) on demand. Either way, unionfs is known to be broken at this time. -- Robert