From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-17806-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: (qmail 21249 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 22:29:47 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Dec 2004 22:29:47 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CbRMZ-0000NQ-AZ for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:29:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 14921 invoked by uid 89); 6 Dec 2004 22:29:46 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 3032 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 22:29:46 +0000 Message-ID: <41B4FC3D.2070808@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:41:33 +0000 From: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041118) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sebastian_Dr=F6ge?= <sebastian.droege@gmx.de> CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <e79639220412061132139da74f@mail.gmail.com> <20041206212428.34767443@beech.glades.net> <e7963922041206130159c0b582@mail.gmail.com> <20041206224113.7a6cc072@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20041206224113.7a6cc072@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -5.9 (-----) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1CbRMW-0008Le-Bc*iVbcW4oZDfg* Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] LUFS - obsoleted, pending removal X-Archives-Salt: 0beebef8-6f2e-4fac-a77d-6fc5dcfa7fa3 X-Archives-Hash: 20eb99470e1777ebd8b1ee83b7653001 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