| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Lufs is a User-mode filesystem implementation. |
| 4 |
I have been working on some lufs bugs, there are 8 bugs filed on this, |
| 5 |
see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67212 for what I made. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I started working on lufs because it is needed for captive. Captive is |
| 8 |
a tool to have full read/write access on ntfs. Then I found out that |
| 9 |
lufs is no longer maintained and started to work with lufis, which |
| 10 |
fully replaces the lufs kernel module(with the maintained fuse module) |
| 11 |
and its userspace utils. There are some modules in the lufs ebuilds, |
| 12 |
which are not(afaik) replaced, but it seems like no one has interest |
| 13 |
in them, as no one answered on my removal notice in the bug. |
| 14 |
Fuse is clearly better than lufis and everything lufs-enabled can be |
| 15 |
run with lufis/fuse. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think we should remove unmaintained fully replaceable ebuilds. As |
| 18 |
this is (maybe) not fully replaced, and the maintainer is not obvious |
| 19 |
I would like to ask for approval on removing lufs, and maybe some |
| 20 |
advice for a new dev on how to do that the best way. I think about |
| 21 |
masking it first and add warning einfos to make all users aware, that |
| 22 |
it is going to be removed after 2 weeks. Lufs is already |
| 23 |
package.masked, because it uses the soon-to-be-obsoleted |
| 24 |
config-kernel/kmod interface. I plan on chnging the text of the |
| 25 |
message a user gets when the merge fails to "Deprecated by lufis & |
| 26 |
fuse, will be removed on <date>". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Stefan |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives