Hi Jan SE.
Thanks for confirming that you didn't see the update limitation as a bug.
We'll go with that for now. ... and I'll just ask the question: if we
filed a bug to get dcfs update working, what are the chances this
enhancement could be made?
Thanks,
Jack
On 12/18/08 14:25, Jan Setje-Eilers wrote:
> 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
