On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:56 PM, David Holland <dholland-t...@netbsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:37:37AM +0000, Eduardo Horvath wrote: > > I would love to hear someone allay my fears, but I think segregating the > > LFS code from the FFS code will accelerate the bitrot and the final result > > will be removal of the LFS code. > > Well. lfs is currently pretty broken and without a substantial > rototill it's going to stay broken. And if it stays broken, it's > certainly going to end up removed. Certain people have already been > agitating to remove it. > > It seems to me that unhooking lfs from ufs is the necessary first step > towards any substantial overhaul of lfs. This is why I'm proposing it. > > There are some people who would like this unhook done so that lfs > stops complicating ufs; they will doubtless be happy to ignore lfs > afterwards, but my goal is to make it work.
if lfs can be made to work comparable to or better than anything we currently have, this will be a win. my perspective tells me that lfs is more or less obsolete at this point and ripping it out and letting it die is its ultimate destiny. -- <center>--*greywolf;<br> /* relayer @t gmail d0t com */ /* ^ spam decoy ^ */