Re: RFC: moving sysutils/fusefs-kmod to base system

From: Oliver Fromme <olli_at_lurza.secnetix.de>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:00:17 +0200 (CEST)
Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
 > Unless I understand how the kernel does stuff there is no penalty for 
 > having unused modules (except the size of the kernel that needs to be 
 > loaded).

Right.

 > Keeping in mind that unless I am not reading stuff corectly 
 > fusefs-kmod is the only FS related module that is not in the base 
 > system.

How is that relevant?

 > Since any fundamental changes in the generic FS API seems to 
 > break fusefs-kmod,

I think such fundamental changes don't happen very often,
and mostly only on -current.  Therefore I don't think it's
a significant problem.

 > [...] it seems to make sense to move it to  the base system  (after all 
 > we already do this with third party FS code like x/zfs)  by moving it we 
 > force it to always compile instead of breaking (of course there can be 
 > other issues but as the FS API is updated fusefs-kmod is also updated to 
 > use the new API)

That theory assumes that the fusefs-kmod code has an active
maintainer who is a FreeBSD src committer.  Does it?  If it
doesn't, then your proposal won't work very well.

Since you mentioned XFS:  I wouldn't mind XFS support being
moved from base to ports.

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606,  Geschäftsfuehrung:
secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün-
chen, HRB 125758,  Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart

FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr:  http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

"Life is short (You need Python)"
        -- Bruce Eckel, ANSI C++ Comitee member, author
           of "Thinking in C++" and "Thinking in Java"
Received on Mon Sep 01 2008 - 11:00:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:34 UTC