jan damborsky wrote: > Hi Jack, > > > Jack Schwartz wrote: >> When I spoke yesterday to Jan Setje-eilers I wasn't under the >> impression that he thought this was a dcfs bug to be fixed. Being >> that each file is compressed individually, he said just don't compress >> the files which will be needed for update. > > To be honest, I am not sure if this is the good long term approach > to deal with this dcfs(7F) limitation. > > As we found out hitting this problem can generate issues which > are not quite obvious they are caused by dcfs(7F) and thus might > be not quite straightforward to evaluate/debug. > > Apparently, we can't always determine in advance which files need > to be put on the list until we hit the problem which is manifestation > of not having particular file on the list containing entries which > are not compressed. > > I agree with you that this can be considered rather enhancement > giving the fact that dcfs(7F) was initially considered to be used > in read-only mode (for legacy miniroot), but since microroot is > writable, my feeling is it might be better solve that problem on dcfs(7F) > level once, rather than maintain special list of files forever.
This is not a bug in dcfs. dcfs fundamentally doesn't work that way. You're asking for seamlessly compressing ufs. I don't know of any plans to add such support to ufs (or any other feature to ufs) for that matter. -jan
