Re: [PATCH] mount: add btrfs to mount.8

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

On 6/7/14, 8:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 6/6/14, 5:03 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:44:28AM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
>>>>  I personally have no problem to maintain information about arbitrary
>>>>  FS in mount.8, the problem are updates. Unfortunately, kernel FS developers
>>>>  don't care about the man page at all and it's very often not up to date.
>>>
>>>  Hmm.. another possible way would be to create a script for util-linux
>>>  that will analyze kernel Documentation/filesystems/<fsname>.txt and
>>>  report changes that is necessary to make to mount.8. It should be
>>>  relative simple with git. I'll try it..
>>
>> I like that idea.  Maybe <fsname.txt> will need a defined format, though,
>> right?  Maybe asciidoc?
>>
>> I've still been meaning (in theory) to produce a mount manpage just for xfs.
>> I'm still willing to do that if the above doesn't pan out.  I just need
>> to get to it.  I'd be happy to do it for extN as well.
> 
> Autogenerating man pages from an adhoc format sounds like the wrong
> approach.  I'd much rather have proper man paged for every filesystem.
> With those we could also drop all that information from the kernel
> Documentation directory, where users won't looks for them anyway.

Well, asciidoc wouldn't be ad-hoc, but still...

> Eric, if you take care of xfs an extN I'll get started on man pages
> for the various "minor" filesystems that don't really have active
> maintainers.
> 
> Not sure if we should go for mount.<fstype>.8 man pages or just improve
> the <fstype>.5 pages, but I think the second one is more obvious.

Since some mount.<fstype> binaries actually exist, that would probably
lead to some confusion.

-Eric