From owner-freebsd-fs Tue Apr 16 6:13:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp-ext.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B810337B400; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:13:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3GDDJb47564; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:13:19 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:13:19 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Early version of HFS/HFS+ driver port to FreeBSD 4 Message-ID: <20020416171318.A47529@comp.chem.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi there, If anyone is interested in testing a very early version of the HFS/HFS+ driver port from Darwin to FreeBSD, please see http://people.freebsd.org/~yar/hfs/ I'd also like to discuss a couple of questions regarding the port's future. First, the code comes from Apple and is covered by the Apple Public Source License, which is rather similar to the GNU one: One must provide the source of any related work for free. It also reserves Apple's right to use any improvements in their commercial products. Does that impose any problems or complications on putting the HFS code into the FreeBSD source tree? Second, the upper layer of the original Apple's code (VFS and vnode operations etc) looks pretty outdated and sometimes poorly written. Which way looks more reasonable, to rewrite it with respect to the modern state of affairs in FreeBSD or to let Apple improve the code over time? -- Yar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message