Y u no Mamaleek

  • 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 3rd, 2025

help-circle







  • [object Object]@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldwindows quality
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Loop mounting is implemented as a separate syscall? But why? I’d expect it to be a parametric thing like mount("loop", ...)
    ლ(•ᯅ• )ლ

    Or do you just mean the whole feature was absent? I’m less surprised by that than the fact that loop mounting might be a separate syscall. Considering stuff like the fact that in NTFS, symlinks to files and to directories are two different things, and the program creating a symlink must distinguish which target it needs.









  • You’re correct, of course — the tasks have to run in a certain order. I can vaguely imagine a config manager that calculates dependencies between the tasks before executing them, kinda like apt does. However, considering the complex relations between various kinds of things like packages, files, keys in a database like Gnome’s settings, running programs, etc., I doubt that it would be feasible to do that. One would have to describe the entirety of these relations for a program, in a format understandable by the manager — or at the very least write a bunch of checks for the prerequisites. Idk if anything like Nix attempts this kind of thing.


  • Hm? Most of the time the config is like ‘these packages should be installed, and these files should be in these directories’. Even stuff that requires running shell commands can and should be written in an idempotent way, basically just checking if the changes are already done.

    Though Ansible kept introducing features like loops and conditionals, but the latter are required for aforementioned checks, and loops are useful for sanity. I’m more irked that they basically reinvented Lisp again, but with an inconvenient syntax.