From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 18 10:02:43 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEC916A41F; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:02:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <43A533E9.8010901@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:03:21 +0800 From: David Xu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050806 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Rodrigues References: <20051213151908.GA26821@crodrigues.org> <20051216151228.GA34670@crodrigues.org> In-Reply-To: <20051216151228.GA34670@crodrigues.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Matthias Andree , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XFS (read-only) support committed to CURRENT X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:02:43 -0000 Craig Rodrigues wrote: >On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:15:17PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: > > >>Hm. Does this mean that FreeBSD's XFS implementation is GPL'd like >>ext2fs is? If so, allow me a question why XFS was chosen in preference >>to ext3fs? >> >> > >Your comment makes no sense. What does being GPL have to do with >choosing ext2fs vs. XFS? We ported XFS to FreeBSD because we felt like it, >and it was fun. ext3fs is irrelevant. > > > I would like to see writable XFS, this gives us another FS option, how diffcult would it be? :-)