moving filesystem mount options from util-linux to man-pages
the mount(8) man page covers not only the mount command, but also the various file system options that come from the kernel. it seems like the communities have settled on the man-pages project for holding all the userland-facing documentation, it has good practices for tracking features across versions, and updating it is a lot easier/safer (than util-linux) and up-to-date on the web (via man7.org). while looking up some proc/ramfs options, i noticed util-linux was out of date by over 6 years :/.
imo, it seems like we should move all kernel-specific documentation out of the util-linux project and into man-pages. obviously all the mount command line options and such should remain.
specifically i'm looking at "FILESYSTEM-SPECIFIC MOUNT OPTIONS":
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/mount.8.html#FILESYSTEM-SPECIFIC_MOUNT_OPTIONS
we probably want to leave "FILESYSTEM-INDEPENDENT MOUNT OPTIONS" in util-linux since those are all parsed by util-linux's mount and turned into the MS_xxx bits.
thoughts ? mount(2) doesn't seem like the best place, but these are the fields that go in the "data" string to that syscall. -mike
Quoted 8 lines · Mike Frysinger
the mount(8) man page covers not only the mount command, but also the various file system options that come from the kernel. it seems like the communities have settled on the man-pages project for holding all the userland-facing documentation, it has good practices for tracking features across versions, and updating it is a lot easier/safer (than util-linux) and up-to-date on the web (via man7.org). while looking up some proc/ramfs options, i noticed util-linux was out of date by over 6 years :/.
Please, send patch if you see any obsolete stuff in mount.8. Unfortunately kernel guys (usually) don't care...
Quoted 3 lines
imo, it seems like we should move all kernel-specific documentation out of the util-linux project and into man-pages. obviously all the mount command line options and such should remain.
I've talked about it (including LKML) many times in last ten years.
Quoted 9 lines
specifically i'm looking at "FILESYSTEM-SPECIFIC MOUNT OPTIONS":
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/mount.8.html#FILESYSTEM-SPECIFIC_MOUNT_OPTIONSwe probably want to leave "FILESYSTEM-INDEPENDENT MOUNT OPTIONS" in util-linux since those are all parsed by util-linux's mount and turned into the
MS_xxxbits.thoughts ? mount(2) doesn't seem like the best place, but these are the fields that go in the "data" string to that syscall.
Fortunately, this "move project" is already on the way. The target is man section 5 and FS specific packages. We already successfully moved
man nfs
man xfs
man ext4 (ext2, ...)
All depends on FS maintainers. I'm going to support arbitrary activity in this area, but this does not depend on util-linux project.
Karel
Signature · 6 lines
Karel Zak <[email protected]> http://karelzak.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 29 lines · Karel Zak
Quoted 8 lines · Mike Frysinger
the mount(8) man page covers not only the mount command, but also the various file system options that come from the kernel. it seems like the communities have settled on the man-pages project for holding all the userland-facing documentation, it has good practices for tracking features across versions, and updating it is a lot easier/safer (than util-linux) and up-to-date on the web (via man7.org). while looking up some proc/ramfs options, i noticed util-linux was out of date by over 6 years :/.
Please, send patch if you see any obsolete stuff in mount.8. Unfortunately kernel guys (usually) don't care...
Quoted 3 lines
imo, it seems like we should move all kernel-specific documentation out of the util-linux project and into man-pages. obviously all the mount command line options and such should remain.
I've talked about it (including LKML) many times in last ten years.
Quoted 9 lines
specifically i'm looking at "FILESYSTEM-SPECIFIC MOUNT OPTIONS":
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/mount.8.html#FILESYSTEM-SPECIFIC_MOUNT_OPTIONSwe probably want to leave "FILESYSTEM-INDEPENDENT MOUNT OPTIONS" in util-linux since those are all parsed by util-linux's mount and turned into the
MS_xxxbits.thoughts ? mount(2) doesn't seem like the best place, but these are the fields that go in the "data" string to that syscall.
Quoted 6 lines
Fortunately, this "move project" is already on the way. The target is man section 5 and FS specific packages. We already successfully moved
man nfs
man xfs
man ext4 (ext2, ...)
if you're OK with that direction, then that makes sense to me
Quoted 2 lines
All depends on FS maintainers. I'm going to support arbitrary activity in this area, but this does not depend on util-linux project.
man-pages is a community project, so i don't think that's entirely accurate. but i'll just send more deletion updates for util-linux. -mike