[gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[Stefan Schweizer]

Hi,

Lufs is a User-mode filesystem implementation.
I have been working on some lufs bugs, there are 8 bugs filed on this,
see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67212 for what I made.

I started working on lufs because it is needed for captive. Captive is
a tool to have full read/write access on ntfs. Then I found out that
lufs is no longer maintained and started to work with lufis, which
fully replaces the lufs kernel module(with the maintained fuse module)
and its userspace utils. There are some modules in the lufs ebuilds,
which are not(afaik) replaced, but it seems like no one has interest
in them, as no one answered on my removal notice in the bug.
Fuse is clearly better than lufis and everything lufs-enabled can be
run with lufis/fuse.

I think we should remove unmaintained fully replaceable ebuilds. As
this is (maybe) not fully replaced, and the maintainer is not obvious
I would like to ask for approval on removing lufs, and maybe some
advice for a new dev on how to do that the best way. I think about
masking it first and add warning einfos to make all users aware, that
it is going to be removed after 2 weeks. Lufs is already
package.masked, because it uses the soon-to-be-obsoleted
config-kernel/kmod interface. I plan on chnging the text of the
message a user gets when the merge fails to "Deprecated by lufis &
fuse, will be removed on <date>".

Stefan

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[Stefan Schweizer]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:24:28 +0100, Daniel Armyr <daniel.armyr@home.se> wrote:
> Is sshfs supported by the new package?

Should be replaced by avfs, but I did not get that compiling.

I propose you to use "emerge -va shfs" for ssh :)
It works without fuse or lufs and has its own kernel module.


Stefan

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[Sebastian Dröge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:01:59 +0100
Stefan Schweizer <sschweizer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:24:28 +0100, Daniel Armyr
> <daniel.armyr@home.se> wrote:
> > Is sshfs supported by the new package?
> 
> Should be replaced by avfs, but I did not get that compiling.
> 
> I propose you to use "emerge -va shfs" for ssh :)
> It works without fuse or lufs and has its own kernel module.

But a generic userspace filesystem is the cleaner solution for
something which needs a userspace application to work... why should
one develop the same parts over and over again when there's a generic
solution for such things? smbfs/cifs could also be implemented this
way much cleaner

Bye

-- 
Homepage: http://slomosnail.de
PGP/GPG Public Key: 0x5BE41F21 at http://slomosnail.de/files/gpg.asc


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:41:13PM +0100, Sebastian Dr?ge wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:01:59 +0100
> Stefan Schweizer <sschweizer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:24:28 +0100, Daniel Armyr
> > <daniel.armyr@home.se> wrote:
> > > Is sshfs supported by the new package?
> > 
> > Should be replaced by avfs, but I did not get that compiling.
> > 
> > I propose you to use "emerge -va shfs" for ssh :)
> > It works without fuse or lufs and has its own kernel module.
> 
> But a generic userspace filesystem is the cleaner solution for
> something which needs a userspace application to work... why should
> one develop the same parts over and over again when there's a generic
> solution for such things?

See FUSE.  People are working to get that into the main kernel tree, see
the linux-fs and linux-kernel mailing list archives for discussions
about the current limitations of all userspace fs implementations.

thanks,

greg k-h

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[Sebastian Dröge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 852 bytes --]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:41:33 +0000
Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Sebastian Dröge wrote:
> > But a generic userspace filesystem is the cleaner solution for
> > something which needs a userspace application to work... why
> > should one develop the same parts over and over again when there's
> > a generic solution for such things? smbfs/cifs could also be
> > implemented this way much cleaner
> 
> Are you just arguing a point, or does lufs actually work for you? I
> once tried a few of the lufs "modules" and all were extremely
> unreliable.
> 
> Daniel

I'm just arguing from the design point of view...

(but i've used fuse with siefs in the past to access the filesystem on
my cellphone and it worked...)

-- 
Homepage: http://slomosnail.de
PGP/GPG Public Key: 0x5BE41F21 at http://slomosnail.de/files/gpg.asc


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal

[Daniel Drake]

Sebastian Dröge wrote:
> But a generic userspace filesystem is the cleaner solution for
> something which needs a userspace application to work... why should
> one develop the same parts over and over again when there's a generic
> solution for such things? smbfs/cifs could also be implemented this
> way much cleaner

Are you just arguing a point, or does lufs actually work for you? I once tried 
a few of the lufs "modules" and all were extremely unreliable.

Daniel

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list