RFC: moving sysutils/fusefs-kmod to base system
Oliver Fromme
olli at lurza.secnetix.de
Mon Sep 1 13:00:19 UTC 2008
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"
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list