Re: unhooking lfs from ufs

[Greywolf <relayer%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:56 PM, David Holland 
<dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:37:37AM +0000, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
>  > I would love to hear someone allay my fears, but I think segregating the
>  > LFS code from the FFS code will accelerate the bitrot and the final result
>  > will be removal of the LFS code.
>
> Well. lfs is currently pretty broken and without a substantial
> rototill it's going to stay broken. And if it stays broken, it's
> certainly going to end up removed. Certain people have already been
> agitating to remove it.
>
> It seems to me that unhooking lfs from ufs is the necessary first step
> towards any substantial overhaul of lfs. This is why I'm proposing it.
>
> There are some people who would like this unhook done so that lfs
> stops complicating ufs; they will doubtless be happy to ignore lfs
> afterwards, but my goal is to make it work.

if lfs can be made to work comparable to or better than anything we
currently have, this will be a win.  my perspective tells me that
lfs is more or less obsolete at this point and ripping it out and
letting it die is its ultimate destiny.


-- 
<center>--*greywolf;<br>
/* relayer @t gmail d0t com */
/* ^ spam decoy ^ */