cgd@sibyte.com wrote:
> Why be inconsistent?  i.e., if ntfs, adosfs, etc., can move, why not
> ufs and nfs?

It's mostly matter of convenience. The amount of changes within
ufs/* is much bigger than for other filesystems. It would be hard
to track down old issues if ufs/*/ or nfs moved. Also, I consider
nfs and ufs/* critical enough to warrant location under sys/.
 
> isofs/cd9660 should probably be flattened down to one level of
> hierarchy.  Its current location is a 4.4-ism, and it's not at all
> clear that it's really The Right Thing.  (it should probably be
> fs/iso9660 or something, and 'iso9660' should be accepted as a valid
> name for the FS as well as cs9660.)

Yes, this seems sensible. cd9600 is strange name, it should have
been iso9660.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>      http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
NetBSD - just plain best OS! -=*=- Got spare MCA cards or docs? Hand me them!