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