Subject: Re: as long as we're hitting FFS...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Eduardo E. Horvath <email@example.com>
Date: 03/23/1999 18:26:59
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> One thing I'd like to make clear is that the current proposal was for
> changes to sys/ufs/ffs, not for the creation of sys/ufs/liffs. As such, we
I for one would feel much more comfortable if it were in sys/ufs/liffs.
FFS is the single most important filesystem and breakage there is
potentially catastrophic. Also, most ports have support for FFS
filesystems in the bootloaders and these changes would have to go there as
Consider how long LFS has been broken without any really ill effects.
This `LIFFS' is a different on-disk format that is incompatible with all
existing FFS-derived filesystems including filesystems used by Ultrix,
Sunos, and SVR4 derivatives. Because of that I assert that it is a
different filesystem and should be separate.
Finally, from a purely practical perspective if it turns out that there
are better ways to implement this sourt of functionality, it is much
easier to dich an entire filesystem than to unwind the modifications from
Eduardo Horvath firstname.lastname@example.org
"I need to find a pithy new quote." -- me