Re: libquota proposal

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

(more context restored)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:51:48AM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
 >>>>>> (also, edquota and repquota seem fs-independent to me...)
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> no, they're not: they can directly the quota1 file specified in the
 >>>>> fstab if quotactl fails or the filesystem is not mounted.
 >>>> 
 >>>> That's a bug, or more accurately legacy behavior that doesn't need to
 >>>> be supported. 
 >>> 
 >>> of course it's not nice. But we're talking about existing code calling the
 >>> legacy quotactl. If we're going to change it to not check the fstab
 >>> options any more, we may as well change it to use libquota.
 >> 
 >> I don't understand - surely edquota and repquota go through your
 >> proplib interface now?
 > 
 > We were talking about code like netatalk, which is why I propose
 > a public library for this.

Uh, now I really don't understand.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost