Importing the fusefs kernel module?

[Robert Watson]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Scott Long wrote:

>> The value of having FUSE in the tree is that it encourages people to put 
>> forth the modicum of effort required to ensure that it still compiles when 
>> kernel APIs change.  I can't comment on whether it is popular enough to 
>> support to such a minimal extent, but it is a nifty little package: you 
>> maintain one kernel module, and you get passable support for several dozen 
>> filesystems for free.
>
> What is comes down to is that it needs a committed owner, someone who not 
> only will shepherd it into the tree, but also work on continuous 
> improvements and handle bug reports.  I personally think that it would be a 
> good thing to have in the kernel, but I can't afford the commitment.

Agreed entirely:

FreeBSD definitely needs fuse -- but it needs a fuse that works well, not one 
that corrupts data and panics in casual use.

Once there's an active maintainer who understands the code and can fix the 
issues, I think importing it is the best thing to do -- while certain classes 
of kernel modules might live comfortable in ports, file system modules are not 
among them.  But it needs an owner first.

Ivan: sounds like perhaps a call for volunteers on current@ / fs@ might be the 
best way forward?

Robert