From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 19 09:47:34 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BEF2106566B
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.129])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48E88FC0A
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:47:33 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id 8DB8373098; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:52:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:52:51 +0100
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com>
Message-ID: <20090119095251.GB52277@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <49742ADA.5080509@FreeBSD.org>
	<20090119081843.GA49607@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<49743BC5.3040508@sippysoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49743BC5.3040508@sippysoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: NTFS in GENERIC: opt-in or opt-out?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:47:34 -0000

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:37:25AM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:25:14PM -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I am reviewing differences between amd64 and i386 GENERIC kernels and 
> >>noticed that for some unclear reason we ship amd64 GENERIC with NTFS 
> >>module compiled in, while i386 without it. IMHO both should match. The 
> >>question is whether NTFS should be i386 way (opt in) or amd64 way (opt 
> >>out) in GENERIC? What do people think?
> >
> >given that the sysutils/fusefs-ntfs seems to be much better,
> >I'd rather remove the in-kernel ntfs from both and replace
> >with a note on what to do to use fusefs-ntfs
> 
> I guess that you can use sysutils/fusefs-ntfs with or without NTFS in 
> the kernel, so that this may not very strong reason to me.

Apart from what others stated (it is trivial to have it loaded on demand),
The major reason is that the kernel ntfs is quite limited in what
it can do (e.g. readonly) and possibly not as well maintained as the
fusefs counterpart.

So replacing the lines in the kernel config with pointers to fusefs-ntfs
helps advertising what I consider a better solution to the particular problem.

cheers
luigi