Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:10:52 +0600 From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> To: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: Juli Mallett <jmallett@freebsd.org>, Enache Adrian <enache@rdslink.ro>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: add ext2fs to the module list in modules/Makefile Message-ID: <20030128121052.B84242@iclub.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030128030545.GA564@HAL9000.homeunix.com>; from dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU on Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 07:05:45PM -0800 References: <20030127211441.GC1043@ratsnest.hole> <20030127213635.GA30541@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20030127224012.GB903@ratsnest.hole> <20030128052915.B75252@iclub.nsu.ru> <20030127153830.A6348@FreeBSD.org> <20030128030545.GA564@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi, there! On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 07:05:45PM -0800, David Schultz wrote: > > > > > Portions of the ext2fs source are covered by the GPL. You > > > > > need to rebuild the kernel with "option EXT2FS". The > > > > > FreeBSD cannot create a ext2fs.ko and comply with the GPL. > > > > > > > > This is weird. > > > > Builting it as part of kernel is ok, but separate, as a module > > > > isn't. > > > > > > IIRC NetBSD has BSD-copyrighted ext2fs implementation > > > > Closely tied to their VFS implementation, which is different, of course, > > last I heard it was a fairly heavy task to port it, but something a lot > > of people would like to see. > > Does it work any better/worse than FreeBSD's implementation? I've heard that their implementation is more stable and bug-free. Just a speculation though. Never had a time to look at it. /fjoe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030128121052.B84242>