[oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Hi I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get included. Is OI interested? -- Damian Wojsław This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Hi Damian, Yes, very much. oi-build is probably the best place to stick it. http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Contribution+Process http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/Building+with+oi-build Cheers, Alasdair On 3 Nov 2011, at 08:58, Damian Wojsław wrote: > Hi > > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main openindiana > package repo and also maintain packages if they get included. Is OI > interested? > > -- > Damian Wojsław > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > ___ > oi-dev mailing list > oi-dev@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
2011/11/3 Damian Wojsław : > Hi > > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main openindiana > package repo and also maintain packages if they get included. Is OI > interested? > > -- > Damian Wojsław How stable is that fuse code, at this point? It used to have some problems, but I haven't tried it in a long time. If the stability is unknown or less than production quality, maybe this should live in an optional repo. for a while? Gordon ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
* Gordon Ross [2011-11-03 15:41]: > 2011/11/3 Damian Wojsław : > > Hi > > > > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main openindiana > > package repo and also maintain packages if they get included. Is OI > > interested? > > > > -- > > Damian Wojsław > > How stable is that fuse code, at this point? > It used to have some problems, but I haven't > tried it in a long time. > > If the stability is unknown or less than production quality, > maybe this should live in an optional repo. for a while? I can't say anything about the quality of FUSE since I don't use it but it is maintained in SFE and already available from http://pkg.openindiana.org/sfe/ -- Guido Berhoerster ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Quoting Gordon Ross : 2011/11/3 Damian Wojsław : Hi I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get included. Is OI interested? -- Damian Wojsław How stable is that fuse code, at this point? It used to have some problems, but I haven't tried it in a long time. Before the inclusion I was planning on doing some simple tests, I also will be using it daily now. So far I have no problems. -- Damian Wojsław This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Quoting Guido Berhoerster : I can't say anything about the quality of FUSE since I don't use it but it is maintained in SFE and already available from http://pkg.openindiana.org/sfe/ -- Guido Berhoerster It is, however it installs uncleanly. We're working with sfe team to fix it. I was hoping to move it closer to distribution, so that, without adding third party repositories, it would be easily available. My ideal situation would be inclusion in the installation of distribution process, but I guess this is a far away possibility. -- Damian Wojsław This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
* Damian Wojsław [2011-11-04 09:51]: > Quoting Guido Berhoerster : > > >I can't say anything about the quality of FUSE since I don't use > >it but it is maintained in SFE and already available from > >http://pkg.openindiana.org/sfe/ > > > >-- > >Guido Berhoerster > > It is, however it installs uncleanly. We're working with sfe team to fix it. Alex and me are the SFE team, I dont see a bug report and I am interested in what gets installed incorrectly? -- Guido Berhoerster ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Quoting Guido Berhoerster : Alex and me are the SFE team, I dont see a bug report and I am interested in what gets installed incorrectly? I talked with tomww about it on IRC. Package did not create /dev/fuse symlink to device created by add_drv step. -- Guido Berhoerster -- Damian Wojsław This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
* Damian Wojsław [2011-11-04 12:54]: > Quoting Guido Berhoerster : > > > >Alex and me are the SFE team, I dont see a bug report and I am > >interested in what gets installed incorrectly? > > I talked with tomww about it on IRC. Package did not create > /dev/fuse symlink to device created by add_drv step. Actually the driver action should handle that but is missing an attribute for modifying devlink.tab. Alex, could you please apply the attached patch? -- Guido Berhoerster diff -r 1ec64fc3f3ca SFEfusefs.spec --- a/SFEfusefs.specFri Oct 28 20:50:41 2011 + +++ b/SFEfusefs.specFri Nov 04 13:24:07 2011 + @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ ) %actions -driver name=fuse +driver name=fuse devlink=type=ddi_pseudo;name=fuse\t\D perms="* 0666 root sys" %files %defattr (-, root, bin) @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ %endif %changelog +* Fri Nov 04 2011 - Guido Berhoerster +- fixed driver action to create devlinks entry * Sat Jul 23 2011 - Guido Berhoerster - added License and SUNW_Copyright tags * Thu Jul 07 2011 - Alex Viskovatoff ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Quoting Guido Berhoerster : Actually the driver action should handle that but is missing an attribute for modifying devlink.tab. Alex, could you please apply the attached patch? -- Guido Berhoerster Thnx -- Damian Wojsław This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 14:26 +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote: > * Damian Wojsław [2011-11-04 12:54]: > > Quoting Guido Berhoerster : > > > > > > >Alex and me are the SFE team, I dont see a bug report and I am > > >interested in what gets installed incorrectly? > > > > I talked with tomww about it on IRC. Package did not create > > /dev/fuse symlink to device created by add_drv step. > > Actually the driver action should handle that but is missing an > attribute for modifying devlink.tab. > > Alex, could you please apply the attached patch? OK, although the way to deal with this is really through the oi-sfe bug tracker. I'll add the fixed fusefs the next time I update pkg.oi.o/sfe. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:58 +0100, Damian Wojsław wrote: > Hi > > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main > openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get > included. Is OI interested? Two points: this project is now hosted at opensolaris.org, so please consider forking it somewhere like bitbucket (it requires both Studio Express and gcc, so I'm not sure if we'll need a fork for that reason--however way you cut it, nothing on opensolaris.org is getting care and feeding in the open, so I don't see why you wouldn't re-host it at this point). I also take Gordon's point about the stability of something like a semi-orphaned kernel module for which we don't have upstream issue tracking (forking gets this out in the open). Whether we flag this by repo or other metadata (and there are other cases where we ought to consider this, such as transitioning off of legacy libraries), we should have some way of marking caveat emptor. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Damian, I created patches for oi-sfe to update SFEfuse to fuse 2.8.6. This supercedes the original fuse sources from the OpenSolaris (OSOL) website project. Still, the original OSOLfuse 2.7.1 lives in the oi-SFE repo for now to use and test. Once the official stable releases of the distros are out (like Solaris 11 and oi_*), I'll refine things a bit more. ~ Ken Mays From: Bayard G. Bell To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:58 +0100, Damian Wojsław wrote: > Hi > > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main > openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get > included. Is OI interested? Two points: this project is now hosted at opensolaris.org, so please consider forking it somewhere like bitbucket (it requires both Studio Express and gcc, so I'm not sure if we'll need a fork for that reason--however way you cut it, nothing on opensolaris.org is getting care and feeding in the open, so I don't see why you wouldn't re-host it at this point). I also take Gordon's point about the stability of something like a semi-orphaned kernel module for which we don't have upstream issue tracking (forking gets this out in the open). Whether we flag this by repo or other metadata (and there are other cases where we ought to consider this, such as transitioning off of legacy libraries), we should have some way of marking caveat emptor. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 18:41 +, Bayard G. Bell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:58 +0100, Damian Wojsław wrote: > > Hi > > > > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main > > openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get > > included. Is OI interested? > > Two points: this project is now hosted at opensolaris.org, so please > consider forking it somewhere like bitbucket (it requires both Studio > Express and gcc, so I'm not sure if we'll need a fork for that > reason--however way you cut it, nothing on opensolaris.org is getting > care and feeding in the open, so I don't see why you wouldn't re-host it > at this point). I also take Gordon's point about the stability of > something like a semi-orphaned kernel module for which we don't have > upstream issue tracking (forking gets this out in the open). Whether we > flag this by repo or other metadata (and there are other cases where we > ought to consider this, such as transitioning off of legacy libraries), > we should have some way of marking caveat emptor. Hm, looking at the GSoC project ideas page, I noticed that gwr has previously forked fuse for illumos (see bottom of https://www.illumos.org/projects/illumos-gate/wiki/Project_Ideas). Could we please start from this base? I think fuse support is something that should be coordinated with the illumos upstream, including giving SFE-maintained patches a long-term home. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Bayard G. Bell wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 18:41 +, Bayard G. Bell wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:58 +0100, Damian Wojsław wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main >> > openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get >> > included. Is OI interested? >> >> Two points: this project is now hosted at opensolaris.org, so please >> consider forking it somewhere like bitbucket [...] If someone wants to debug/extend/maintain that code, then yes, bitbucket or somewhere would be a good idea. >> [...] I also take Gordon's point about the stability of >> something like a semi-orphaned kernel module for which we don't have >> upstream issue tracking (forking gets this out in the open). Whether we >> flag this by repo or other metadata (and there are other cases where we >> ought to consider this, such as transitioning off of legacy libraries), >> we should have some way of marking caveat emptor. That was the reason for my question. I'm not sure what level of stability that opensolaris code has. Some have found it useful. > Hm, looking at the GSoC project ideas page, I noticed that gwr has > previously forked fuse for illumos (see bottom of > https://www.illumos.org/projects/illumos-gate/wiki/Project_Ideas). Could > we please start from this base? I think fuse support is something that > should be coordinated with the illumos upstream, including giving > SFE-maintained patches a long-term home. That little "science project" I started was fun, and I'd _love_ to see someone with interest in that take it forward. The initial results were very promising, but there's much more work to do. (For more info, see: https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a ) However, unless and until someone does more work on that "science project", I don't think it's really a contender to be "the illumos 'fuse' module". (And if there's not some more testing, debugging, etc. done on the old opensolaris fuse code, I'm not sure that's really a contender either!:) Gordon ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 04:15 +, Bayard G. Bell wrote: > I think fuse support is something that > should be coordinated with the illumos upstream, including giving > SFE-maintained patches a long-term home. Why do you hate SFE? There's nothing short-term about it. oi-sfe is part of the OpenIndiana project, so there really is no excuse for your continual dismissive and derisive comments and actions towards oi-sfe. And I have no personal interest in fuse. I'm just not sure it will ever become sufficiently stable for it to become incorporated into Illumos. I certainly can't imagine anyone ever using fuse on production servers running Illumos, for example. ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Hi, Ref: https://www.illumos.org/issues/252 illumos-fuse2: https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a oi-sfe fuse 2.8.6: https://bugs.illumos.org/issues/1729 I saw a rejection from Richard Lowe for a request for Illumos to update the OSOLfuse modules to fuse 2.8.4. From his explanation, fuse is not part of Illumos so the rejection made sense at the time. Bayed, are we now opposing this notion? As for illumos-gate2, Gordon, is it better to use the fuse 2.8.6 sources and implement your patches to it (vfs related) to create packages to update the fuse packages (based on OSOLfuse 20100615 (2.7.x) sources) in oi-sfe?? We could just use your previous work and start from there to test and review or from the native fuse 2.8.x sources and port your code. I've already ported fuse 2.8.6 for oi-sfe purposes, so either way we want to spin the bottle is fine with me. See: system/file-system/fuse-ext2@0.0.5,5.11-0.151.1:20111014T184713Z system/file-system/fusefs@0.20100615,5.11-0.151.1:20111014T184714Z system/file-system/libfuse@0.20100615,5.11-0.151.1:20111014T184714Z Also, I don't mind if someone else picks up the continual work effort from the oi-sfe side of the fence. Just, let us move forward on the topic... ~ Ken Mays From: Gordon Ross To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Bayard G. Bell wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 18:41 +, Bayard G. Bell wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 09:58 +0100, Damian Wojsław wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > I would like to work on inclusion of fuse and ntfs-3g into main >> > openindiana package repo and also maintain packages if they get >> > included. Is OI interested? >> >> Two points: this project is now hosted at opensolaris.org, so please >> consider forking it somewhere like bitbucket [...] If someone wants to debug/extend/maintain that code, then yes, bitbucket or somewhere would be a good idea. >> [...] I also take Gordon's point about the stability of >> something like a semi-orphaned kernel module for which we don't have >> upstream issue tracking (forking gets this out in the open). Whether we >> flag this by repo or other metadata (and there are other cases where we >> ought to consider this, such as transitioning off of legacy libraries), >> we should have some way of marking caveat emptor. That was the reason for my question. I'm not sure what level of stability that opensolaris code has. Some have found it useful. > Hm, looking at the GSoC project ideas page, I noticed that gwr has > previously forked fuse for illumos (see bottom of > https://www.illumos.org/projects/illumos-gate/wiki/Project_Ideas). Could > we please start from this base? I think fuse support is something that > should be coordinated with the illumos upstream, including giving > SFE-maintained patches a long-term home. That little "science project" I started was fun, and I'd _love_ to see someone with interest in that take it forward. The initial results were very promising, but there's much more work to do. (For more info, see: https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a ) However, unless and until someone does more work on that "science project", I don't think it's really a contender to be "the illumos 'fuse' module". (And if there's not some more testing, debugging, etc. done on the old opensolaris fuse code, I'm not sure that's really a contender either!:) Gordon ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 04:34 -0500, Alex Viskovatoff wrote: > On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 04:15 +, Bayard G. Bell wrote: > > I think fuse support is something that > > should be coordinated with the illumos upstream, including giving > > SFE-maintained patches a long-term home. > > Why do you hate SFE? There's nothing short-term about it. [snip] You've misunderstood the sense in which I call invoke a "short-term". I mean that in term of having an upstream to accept patches. I've yet to run into a porting project that loves carrying an accumulation of patches that lack an upstream or upstream acceptance. When I speak of a need to fork and suggest that the SFE patches should be reviewed for acceptance by the new upstream, I can't see how that's a dig against SFE. Others have read and responded to my remarks and understood them as intended, and I see no reasonable basis for further claims that I "hate" SFE and "continually" dismiss and deride it in any form. If you're concerned that something I've said could be mistaken for a negative remark about SFE, I'd happily respond to a question seeking clarification, but I don't count being flamed on a public list as a reasonable response, certainly not when you're posting after other responses that have heard me in my intended register. I hope and expect that you will withdraw your remarks for such reasons. Regards, Bayard ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:07 AM, ken mays wrote: > Hi, > > Ref: https://www.illumos.org/issues/252 > illumos-fuse2: https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a > oi-sfe fuse 2.8.6: https://bugs.illumos.org/issues/1729 > I saw a rejection from Richard Lowe for a request for Illumos to update the > OSOLfuse modules to fuse 2.8.4. > From his explanation, fuse is not part of Illumos so the rejection made > sense at the time. Right, there are still no fuse kernel modules or libraries in illumos. When some implementation is "ready" (definition TBD) then it would be reasonable for someone to propose integration. (And I hope it might be based on my science project, but if there's another that makes it to "ready" first, that's OK:) >Bayerd, are we now opposing this notion? > > As for illumos-gate2, Gordon, is it better to use the fuse 2.8.6 sources and > implement your patches to it (vfs related) to create packages to update the > fuse packages (based on OSOLfuse 20100615 (2.7.x) sources) in oi-sfe?? The fuse library in https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a is 2.8.5. I presume the changes between 2.8.5-2.8.6 are modest. They might be unnecessary in the above code because "fuse_lowlevel" is not included, and much of the original libfuse code is not used in this implementation. (Read the intro on bitbucket for why that is.) > We > could just use your previous work and start from there to test and review or > from the native fuse 2.8.x sources and port your code. I've already ported > fuse 2.8.6 for oi-sfe purposes, so either way we want to spin the bottle is > fine with me. If someone wants to update the libfuse used in the opensolaris code, that should not be terribly hard. That implementation uses the typical "fuse kern. channel" interface between the kernel module and the user-level library, so the library is not heavily changed from upstream. Gordon ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g
Gordon, Thanks for the info. I went ahead and migrated over your patches. I'll phase in the final concept soon. ~ Ken Mays From: Gordon Ross To: OpenIndiana Developer mailing list Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2011 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [oi-dev] Fuse and NTFS-3g On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 7:07 AM, ken mays wrote: > Hi, > > Ref: https://www.illumos.org/issues/252 > illumos-fuse2: https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a > oi-sfe fuse 2.8.6: https://bugs.illumos.org/issues/1729 > I saw a rejection from Richard Lowe for a request for Illumos to update the > OSOLfuse modules to fuse 2.8.4. > From his explanation, fuse is not part of Illumos so the rejection made > sense at the time. Right, there are still no fuse kernel modules or libraries in illumos. When some implementation is "ready" (definition TBD) then it would be reasonable for someone to propose integration. (And I hope it might be based on my science project, but if there's another that makes it to "ready" first, that's OK:) > Bayerd, are we now opposing this notion? > > As for illumos-gate2, Gordon, is it better to use the fuse 2.8.6 sources and > implement your patches to it (vfs related) to create packages to update the > fuse packages (based on OSOLfuse 20100615 (2.7.x) sources) in oi-sfe?? The fuse library in https://bitbucket.org/gwr/illumos-fuse2a is 2.8.5. I presume the changes between 2.8.5-2.8.6 are modest. They might be unnecessary in the above code because "fuse_lowlevel" is not included, and much of the original libfuse code is not used in this implementation. (Read the intro on bitbucket for why that is.) > We > could just use your previous work and start from there to test and review or > from the native fuse 2.8.x sources and port your code. I've already ported > fuse 2.8.6 for oi-sfe purposes, so either way we want to spin the bottle is > fine with me. If someone wants to update the libfuse used in the opensolaris code, that should not be terribly hard. That implementation uses the typical "fuse kern. channel" interface between the kernel module and the user-level library, so the library is not heavily changed from upstream. Gordon ___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev___ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
