From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 1 13:00:19 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAB35106569B for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:00:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (unknown [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AD58FC2A for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:00:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m81D0H0N093447; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:00:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m81D0HMq093446; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:00:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:00:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200809011300.m81D0HMq093446@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, aryeh.friedman@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <48BB4FEB.1050906@gmail.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-current User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.3-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:00:17 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: RFC: moving sysutils/fusefs-kmod to base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, aryeh.friedman@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:00:19 -0000 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"