Re: NiLFS(2) import

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

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 01:23:46PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
 > > Any decision to remove LFS should be taken on the merits of LFS [...]
 > > rather than based on the appearance of another unrelated FS that
 > > merely has a similar design.
 > 
 > Yes and no.
 > 
 > The merits of LFS to NetBSD depend, in part, on what other facilities
 > are available for providing the functionality LFS brings.  If nilfs
 > brings the same benefits as lfs (I don't know whether this is actually
 > so), lfs becomes less valuable to us with nilfs's appearance,
 > especially if nilfs also avoids some/all of lfs's downsides.

True.

But in any event it's not time to apply this calculus until nilfs is
running read-write with a working cleaner.

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