Re: NiLFS(2) import

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 09:31:08AM +0200, Mark Weinem wrote:
 > > No, not particularly, any more than adding ext2fs was a step toward
 > > removing ffs, or adding ext3fs would be a step toward removing WAPBL.
 > 
 > Why do we want to keep LFS when we have NiLFS? 

Because it's a different FS. Why do we have more than one FS at all?

Any decision to remove LFS should be taken on the merits of LFS (which
are admittedly sketchy) rather than based on the appearance of another
unrelated FS that merely has a similar design.

 > Who maintains LFS?

Nobody in particular but there are plans for lfs-renovation and I
believe I know a way to fix its locking problems.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost