isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?

[Wilko Bulte]

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:19:19AM -0600, Scott Long wrote..
> John Baldwin wrote:
> >On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote:
> >
> >>Eric Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what 
> >>>seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660.  Is there any reason not to move it? 
> >>>  Curious mostly..
> >>>
> >>>Eric
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Inertia, mostly.  And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs?  Let the
> >>bi-yearly debate begin.....
> >>
> >>Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up
> >>fairly regularly.  We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though,
> >>so thanks for giving it a kickstart.
> >
> >
> >We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past.  
> >Only cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level.  I'd still say leave nfs 
> >and ufs alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the 
> >extra isofs directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point.
> >
> 
> What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?.  And
> don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch!  Ah, I love the
> smell of fresh paint in the morning.  Smells like.... napalm.

Now where is that Wagner MP3 again.. ??

-- 
Wilko Bulte				wilko at FreeBSD.org