Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:48:40 +0700 (ALMST) From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com>, kris@obsecurity.org, gordont@bluemtn.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mount_mfs (Re: smbfs) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105291541570.82757-100000@lion.butya.kz> In-Reply-To: <20010525092835.C30791@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:04:09PM +0700, Boris Popov wrote: > > There is no any technical problems in doing that. But I'm unsure > > if this should be done (code is not very small). On other hand, people > > expect it in the base system... Probably we should collect more votes on > > this topic. > > I'll definatly vote for inclusion. IMO, it makes no sense to have a > filesystem in the base you can't mount. If it really is so hugh that > people complain, there's always the ugly NO_MOUNT_SMBFS make.conf option > route. Those who really need small systems have to strip all sorts of > things out already anyway, one more won't hurt. Ok, now I've received about fifty votes for inclusion of userland part in the base tree and zero objections. Import process will be done in the -current first and then MFCed to -stable. -- Boris Popov http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0105291541570.82757-100000>