On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > But if these configurations are unsupported, please state so clearly
> > on your site and documentation. So users will not try to go against
> > you... Maybe fuse-lite project will emerge and ntfs-3g will migrate to
> > this one to keep up with its userbase.
>
> You say this as if that would be a bad thing. I think a fuse-lite
> project would be a _great_ thing, honestly.
I can confirm this, we have discussed this in the past.
For the short term, it seems this would be very beneficial shorten ntfs-3g
release cycles and guarantee better quality with higher user satisfaction
(e.g. no need to test/support old libfuse versions, the ntfs-3g QA runs
almost a week non-stop on some embedded devices testing with just one fuse
version).
Basically the needed code could be source imported and statically linked,
just like several widely used softwares do with gnulib. So there would be
no external, runtime dependency at all on FUSE user space.
The ntfs-3g team would happily take such patch provided if it's optional:
the driver should still work with the offical FUSE releases if one wants
to. I.e. the required API compatibility is kept.
Alon, please note that FUSE and ntfs-3g works fine with uclibc if symvers
are eliminated. I'm not the only one who use it all the time. The only
problems (minus the /bin/mount -i compatibility problem) I have met on this
area were all due to them and the incorrect patches users cooked up.
Szaka
--
NTFS-3G Lead Developer: http://ntfs-3g.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
ntfs-3g-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
