[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys

To: "Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz" <draco@obta.uw.edu.pl>
Subject: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
From: "Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:43:03 +0100
Cc: "MiNT mailing list" <mint@gfanrend.fishpool.fi>
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.991115163038.26600L-100000@antyk.obta.uw.edu.pl>
Reply-to: <reschke@muenster.de>
Sender: owner-mint@gfanrend.fishpool.fi

> The other thing is, that when we use a limited filesystem (like FAT is),
> we must accept its limited features. Un*x like filesystems do have +s, FAT
> does not, and here you have an advantage of using Un*x-like FS instead of
> (or: in addition to) FAT.
>
> Anyway, I don't know if this is still the problem Martin has/had.

I think he's got a different problem. I've sent him a version with some
debugging output added...

References:
- RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
  - From: "Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz" <draco@obta.uw.edu.pl>

Prev by Date: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Previous by thread: RE: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] Was: /proc, will be: /sys
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread