Re: state or future of LFS?

[Wouter Klouwen <dublet%acm.org@localhost>]

David Holland(dholland-current%netbsd.org@localhost) said 2009.04.14 08:19:24 
+0000:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:21:25PM +0000, Wouter Klouwen wrote:
>  > Is it not possible to have some sort of modular framework for file systems
>  > (perhaps as LKM), which provides for some of the basic FS operations?
>  > This could be used to maximise code sharing and minimise bugs, yet avoid
>  > trying to tie different FSes into a commonality they don't have. 
> 
> That's what sys/ufs/ufs is *supposed* to be. Too bad it doesn't really
> work that way.
> [..]
> This kind of structural stuff is hard to get right, and each failed
> try makes the problem only that much worse...

From my experience the only structural stuff that is hard to get right, is
structural stuff that tries to do too much. 
I'm not trying to take away anything from all the effort that's gone into
it, and all of your developers are very clever people, but if LFS suffers
from UFS problems, won't any other FS that tries to use UFS? (Apart from
FFS, of course.)

> David A. Holland
        --Wouter