Hi folks,
I've released DuggFS, a file system based on Fuse and implemented in
Chicken Scheme.
http://www.omnigia.com/scheme/duggfs/
It lets you view Digg content as a filesystem:
$ ls /tmp/duggfs
config stories users
$ cd /tmp/duggfs/stories/topics/programming/popular
$ ls
A_Computer_Scie
Hi Dan,
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:05:21 +0300 Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've released DuggFS, a file system based on Fuse and implemented in
> Chicken Scheme.
A m a z i n g! Very cool idea. :-)
I'm facing some problems to compile duggfs:
$ ./setup.sh
Enter your host name (used for
I second Mario, that is really an amazing idea; filesystems
implemented in high-level languages have been a long-time fascination
of mine. Would it be possible for you to release the libfuse Chicken
wrapper as a standalone egg?
-Ivan
Mario Domenech Goulart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi D
fuse_mod_wrap.c: In function '_wrap_fuse_main_real':
fuse_mod_wrap.c:5204: warning: passing argument 3 of 'fuse_main_real' from
incompatible pointer type
fuse_mod_wrap.c:5204: error: too few arguments to function 'fuse_main_real'
*** Shell command terminated with exit status 1: gcc fuse_mod_wrap.
I second Mario, that is really an amazing idea; filesystems
implemented in high-level languages have been a long-time fascination
of mine. Would it be possible for you to release the libfuse Chicken
wrapper as a standalone egg?
Thanks for the kind words, Mario and Ivan.
It would be possible,
Okay, that's reasonable. I was under the impression that the fuse
API is relatively fixed, now that it has been included in the Linux
kernel, and Debian stable actually includes a somewhat recent version
(2.5.something, I think), but if you feel that the dust hasn't settled
yet, I can wait or us
On 6/7/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fuse_mod_wrap.c: In function '_wrap_fuse_main_real':
> fuse_mod_wrap.c:5204: warning: passing argument 3 of 'fuse_main_real' from
incompatible pointer type
> fuse_mod_wrap.c:5204: error: too few arguments to function 'fuse_main_real'
> *** Shel
I second the previous accolades. As it happens, I had also started
work on a FUSE egg some time back, but didn't get very far beyond the
hellofs stage due to work pressures. I'm very much looking forward to
throwing my code away and using yours :-)
On 6/7/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Thanks Arto.
Also, the existing FUSE bindings for Ruby and Python appear to have
achieved stability on a number of platforms and may be worth looking
at for tips and tricks.
I'm not so sure about that. I distinctly remember it was a bitch to
compile a Python-based filesystem (something along
On Thursday 07 June 2007 01:34:42 pm Dan Muresan wrote:
> Thanks Arto.
>
> > Also, the existing FUSE bindings for Ruby and Python appear to have
> > achieved stability on a number of platforms and may be worth looking
> > at for tips and tricks.
Perhaps also look at the stklos fuse implemention:
Also, does chicken have native threads available? I'm under the impression
that native threads are needed if you want multiple processes to be
accessing files on a fuse fs simultaneously. Stklos does native threads but
I wasn't able to get the stklos/fuse package to compile/install on my
system
On Jun 8, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Matthew Welland wrote:
On Thursday 07 June 2007 01:34:42 pm Dan Muresan wrote:
Thanks Arto.
Also, the existing FUSE bindings for Ruby and Python appear to have
achieved stability on a number of platforms and may be worth looking
at for tips and tricks.
Perhaps a
Hi Dan,
You mention on your webpage that "Scheme functions cannot serve as C
callbacks" ... was the showstopper the multithreaded ->
cooperative-threaded impedance difference, or was there another issue
with calling back into Scheme from C?
On 6/9/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My f
You mention on your webpage that "Scheme functions cannot serve as C
callbacks" ... was the showstopper the multithreaded ->
cooperative-threaded impedance difference, or was there another issue
with calling back into Scheme from C?
Not really. I said that Scheme functions cannot serve as C call
Hi,
I've updated duggfs to address the compilation errors reported by Felix
and Mario. I have taken a different approach by no longer attempting to
get through SWIG. This loses some functionality, but I believe
it's the only workable solution.
I kindly ask those who reported errors (as well
If I install as duggfs comes out of the box it fails per the listing below.
I changed the errno.i target in the makefile to:
errno.i:
./gen_errno.sh >errno.i || $(RM) -f errno.i
and made gen_errno.sh executable and now it builds for me. I'm now having
permission problems when running:
errno.i:
./gen_errno.sh >errno.i || $(RM) -f errno.i
Another dash/bash problem on Debian or Ubuntu. I used the "source"
command to load a script in the current shell, and presumably this is
not POSIX, so dash (the default /bin/sh since last year) refuses it.
Does anyone know the POSIX
On Saturday 09 June 2007 08:29:40 pm Dan Muresan wrote:
> > errno.i:
> > ./gen_errno.sh >errno.i || $(RM) -f errno.i
>
> Another dash/bash problem on Debian or Ubuntu. I used the "source"
> command to load a script in the current shell, and presumably this is
> not POSIX, so dash (the defau
Hi Matt,
Glad to hear it finally worked.
Remaining problem: all the files are owned by root with group root and some
are not world readable.
Unreadable directories are so by design. I've just put up a note on the
duggfs homepage.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/duggfs$ ls -l
total 0
drwxrwxrwx 2
"DM" == Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> errno.i:
>> ./gen_errno.sh >errno.i || $(RM) -f errno.i
DM> Another dash/bash problem on Debian or Ubuntu. I used the "source"
DM> command to load a script in the current shell, and presumably this
DM> is not POSIX, so dash (the default /bin/s
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Matthew Welland wrote:
> On Saturday 09 June 2007 08:29:40 pm Dan Muresan wrote:
> > > errno.i:
> > > ./gen_errno.sh >errno.i || $(RM) -f errno.i
> >
> > Another dash/bash problem on Debian or Ubuntu. I used the "source"
> > command to load a script
Not really. It is in the Linux world, but outside that, there are lots of
Unices that don't come with Bash. In fact, one of the things that are most
annoying to Unix people who don't use Linux is the widespread hidden
assumption that /bin/sh points to bash. The fact that bash doesn't act
like a
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 03:30:15PM +0300, Dan Muresan wrote:
> While I understand the spirit of POSIX advocacy, note that this thread
> is about a Linux file system. Also, care to share the concrete solution
> in this case? What's the POSIXly correct way to load a script in the
> current shell (
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 03:30:15PM +0300, Dan Muresan wrote:
While I understand the spirit of POSIX advocacy, note that this thread
is about a Linux file system. Also, care to share the concrete solution
in this case? What's the POSIXly correct way to load a script in the
current shell ("." or
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 03:54:50PM +0300, Dan Muresan wrote:
> > How about $(cat filename) or `cat filename`?
>
> No. I'm surprised you've never run across the "source" or "." commands,
> they're fairly common. They execute execute scripts in the current shell
> (as opposed to spawning a new she
Peter Bex scripsit:
> > No. I'm surprised you've never run across the "source" or "." commands,
> > they're fairly common. They execute execute scripts in the current shell
> > (as opposed to spawning a new shell process). They're essential when you
> > want a script to modify the environment o
Dan Muresan scripsit:
> While I understand the spirit of POSIX advocacy, note that this thread
> is about a Linux file system. Also, care to share the concrete solution
> in this case? What's the POSIXly correct way to load a script in the
> current shell ("." or "source" in bash, neither of wh
I looked a little further, and dash(1) says it supports dot.
Turns out you're right; however, it seems that "the dot" is somehow
affected by PATH considerations, so
. setup.sh
does not work, yet
. ./setup.sh
does work. Which is pretty strange; I expected dot to look in the
current directo
Dan Muresan scripsit:
> I expected dot to look in the current directory by default, and to
> ignore the PATH.
Nope. Posix says:
# If file does not contain a slash, the shell shall use the search
# path specified by PATH to find the directory containing file. Unlike
# normal command
On 6/10/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Hi,
I've updated duggfs to address the compilation errors reported by Felix
and Mario. I have taken a different approach by no longer attempting to
get through SWIG. This loses some functionality, but I believe
it's the only workable solution.
Hi Dan,
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:22:51 +0300 Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've updated duggfs to address the compilation errors reported by
> Felix and Mario. I have taken a different approach by no longer
> attempting to get through SWIG. This loses some
> functionality, but I believe
On 07/06/07, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay, that's reasonable. I was under the impression that the fuse
API is relatively fixed, now that it has been included in the Linux
kernel, and Debian stable actually includes a somewhat recent version
(2.5.something, I think),
There shoul
On a Xubuntu machine (where I first tried duggfs) it's now building
ok, but I get an error when running start_duggfs.sh:
$ ./start_duggfs.sh /tmp/duggfs
To unmount, type "fusermount -u /tmp/duggfs"
$ Error: (string-ref) bad argument type: #
This is probably not related to fuse. Unfortunately t
Hi Dan,
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:41:38 +0300 Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On a Xubuntu machine (where I first tried duggfs) it's now building
> > ok, but I get an error when running start_duggfs.sh:
> > $ ./start_duggfs.sh /tmp/duggfs
> > To unmount, type "fusermount -u /tmp/duggfs"
Mario discovered that his problems were (most likely) due to an unstable
url egg. As of now, there are no other active complaints about duggfs
not building. Hopefully this will stay true :)
A few of you have mentioned their past interest in using Scheme for a
filesystem. Out of curiosity, what
On Monday 11 June 2007 10:33:03 am Dan Muresan wrote:
> Mario discovered that his problems were (most likely) due to an unstable
> url egg. As of now, there are no other active complaints about duggfs
> not building. Hopefully this will stay true :)
>
> A few of you have mentioned their past intere
On 6/11/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mario discovered that his problems were (most likely) due to an unstable
url egg. As of now, there are no other active complaints about duggfs
not building. Hopefully this will stay true :)
It works for me now too. Incredible!
A few of you h
Me too! ;-)
- developing a Scheme-based domain-specific language for implementing
secure/safe/guaranteed-integrity filesystems, using techniques like
the various secure proof-carrying calculi
- developing file-systems optimized for reading and writing particular
types of data structures, w
> "felix winkelmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>
> >> A few of you have mentioned their past interest in using Scheme
> >> for a filesystem. Out of curiosity, what ideas did you guys have
> >> in mind?
I must have missed that post. This is, when I *must* put in my
shameless plug about hav
Ah, the infamous Askemos. I am aware of it, of course, and it is a
very impressive work. If I ever get to work on a similar project, I
will probably borrow many ideas from Askemos (if not use it
wholesale), but I am specifically interested in using advanced
programming language techniques (like
40 matches
Mail list logo
