Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Guillem Jover:
> I'd also prefer to keep it separate. And I'd also keep non-kFreeBSD
> support, because even if the other kernels do not support UFS, you can
> use the tools to do some setup or recovery operations, which seem
> pretty handy to me (fsck, mkfs, etc).
Well yes, I think we all agree that GNU/Linux support in ufsutils is a
good thing. No need to argue about that.
Problem is that preserving this feature requires additional manpower.
And this resource has proven to be scarce... :-(
> I'll look into updating to latest upstream preserving the current
> support, hopefully in the coming days, been a bit busy lately, sorry!
That's what you said in July! :-)
But please take no offense. I'm sure you've been busy, and I think we
need to be honest with ourselves here. Maintaining this port takes a lot
of effort and the ufsutils "GNU/Linux patchset" is an extra burden that
makes it lag behind in almost every release. So please understand that
my aim is not to assign blame, but to find solutions.
Given that pristine source from upstream is already buildable and
usable, my solution would be to move GNU/Linux support aside
until/unless someone cares enough about it to get the patchset in a
mergeable state and submit it upstream. That's my solution but it's just
a proposal, it doesn't have to be the one we apply.
So what's the solution you have in mind? How do you see this problem
being solved in the long term?
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: