taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #14945, Submission of Extendable Read-Only...

 
 

task #14945: Submission of Extendable Read-Only File System

Submitted by:  Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Submitted on:  Fri 01 Jun 2018 02:37:11 AM UTC  
 
Should Start On:  Fri 01 Jun 2018 12:00:00 AM UTC Should be Finished on:  Mon 11 Jun 2018 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category:  Project Approval Priority:  5 - Normal
Status:  Cancelled Privacy:  Public
Percent Complete:  0% Assigned to:  Ineiev <ineiev>
Open/Closed:  Closed Effort:  0.00

Add a New Comment(Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

( Jump to the original submission)

Sat 16 Jun 2018 02:32:53 AM UTC, comment #36:

Hi Karl,

> a license "compatible with the GNU GPL" (the phrase on both pages) means any version of GNU GPL, present and future (that's implied in the GPL text itself). That is why or-any-later-version is required. That is why the only listed licenses are indeed compatible with GPLv3+.
> In general, the idea of Savannah is to host software that can be used as part of the GNU Project, because the FSF sponsors/owns Savannah. And that means being compatible with GPLv3+.
> It is true that we could explicitly state that GPLv3+ compatibility is required; I'll look into that. But it is already implicit in the words there, and, regardless of how good we are at writing explanations, it has always been the policy.


In addition to that, I think I can claim my project as
"GNU General Public License v2 or later", from the faq text:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

And I think Savannah has exceptions and it seems not only because of the "historical reasons" (projects "historical" approved till to the last year), so I think I could leave some words to comment these "historical" exceptions of course.

But ok, that is all, thanks for your and Ineiev's kindly help :)

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Sat 16 Jun 2018 02:14:12 AM UTC, comment #35:

Hi Karl,

> a license "compatible with the GNU GPL" (the phrase on both pages) means any version of GNU GPL, present and future (that's implied in the GPL text itself). That is why or-any-later-version is required. That is why the only listed licenses are indeed compatible with GPLv3+.
> In general, the idea of Savannah is to host software that can be used as part of the GNU Project, because the FSF sponsors/owns Savannah. And that means being compatible with GPLv3+.

It is true that we could explicitly state that GPLv3+ compatibility is required; I'll look into that. But it is already implicit in the words there, and, regardless of how good we are at writing explanations, it has always been the policy.

OK, if that is implied in the GPL text itself, I have no idea how the Linux kernel marked the kernel as GPLv2-only, its text is shown at

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0?h=v4.17

compared to
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

I don't have enough knowledge to get the point.

BTW I also searched a lwn text,
https://lwn.net/Articles/176670/

Actually I can only select the distribute license of the part of our code, of course not all the Linux kernel, and in my point of view, GPL-v2 is also good for us, but I can also accept GPL-v2+ licenses.

Anyway, if "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" is so important,
GPLv2 is not so freedom as a free software, I have to find an alternative hosting.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 09:06:29 PM UTC, comment #34:

a license "compatible with the GNU GPL" (the phrase on both pages) means any version of GNU GPL, present and future (that's implied in the GPL text itself). That is why or-any-later-version is required. That is why the only listed licenses are indeed compatible with GPLv3+.

In general, the idea of Savannah is to host software that can be used as part of the GNU Project, because the FSF sponsors/owns Savannah. And that means being compatible with GPLv3+.

It is true that we could explicitly state that GPLv3+ compatibility is required; I'll look into that. But it is already implicit in the words there, and, regardless of how good we are at writing explanations, it has always been the policy.

Karl Berry <karl>
Site Administrator
Fri 15 Jun 2018 02:24:58 PM UTC, comment #33:

>This wasn't backed by facts, and even if true, I don't consider it really relevant: having exceptions doesn't invalidate the rule.


And I might repeat again,

the Savannah web pages currently don't express "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" directly, on:
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/
or
https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php

So I think if "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility", it needs to be shown explicitly, and I think there are no exception for these projects.

Currently, it just make a "For manuals" example and use the "recommend" expression,
"For manuals, we recommend GNU FDL version X-or-later, where X is the latest released version of the FDL; other licensing compatible with that is acceptable."

Actually, I have no idea of the historical exceptions expression, "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" is not pointed out explicitly yet, the "history" I think is now.

Thank,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 02:02:58 PM UTC, comment #32:

>> 2) Considering effectively, there are projects (the whole or parts of these projects) are GPL-v2 only effectively.


>This wasn't backed by facts, and even if true, I don't consider it really relevant: having exceptions doesn't invalidate the rule.


OK, let's go straight to the subject, I selected "Real Time Application Interface" approval by you, why I wonder why it is an exception?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 01:57:19 PM UTC, comment #31:

>> 1) The EROFS file system can be licensed as "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later", not GPL-v2 only;


>I disagree, in the context that the user would have to follow GPLv2-only terms.


Please refer to:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2

It clear say that
While you may release your project (either your original work and/or work that you received and modified) under GPLv2-or-later in this case, note that the other code you're using must remain under GPLv2 only. As long as your project depends on that code, you won't be able to upgrade the license of your project to GPLv3-or-later, and the work as a whole (any combination of both your project and the other code) can only be conveyed under the terms of GPLv2.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 01:49:40 PM UTC, comment #30:

> This topic is somewhat meaningless


Then I'm skipping it to save the time.

> 1) The EROFS file system can be licensed as "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later", not GPL-v2 only;


I disagree, in the context that the user would have to follow GPLv2-only terms.

> 2) Considering effectively, there are projects (the whole or parts of these projects) are GPL-v2 only effectively.


This wasn't backed by facts, and even if true, I don't consider it really relevant: having exceptions doesn't invalidate the rule.

> If there exist some problems, please point out.


I feel we are miscommunicating.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 15 Jun 2018 01:36:20 PM UTC, comment #29:

>> it also has the Linux kernel headers dependency


>The point is not whether the package uses kernel headers; the point is whether it makes a single executable with the kernel. The kernel modules clearly do.


I think the kernel headers is the actually main point, there are many file system format header file in GPL, if they use it directly then the software itself must be GPL.

And the following line creates a executable .ko with the kernel, I don't want to dive into whether the Makefile is conditional or not,
its code is distributed with the following Makefile, and people usually don't use this method to judge whether it is GPLed:
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/tasklets/Makefile.kbuild?view=markup :

10 EXTRA_CFLAGS += -I$(rtai_srctree)/base/include \
11 -I$(src)/../include \
12 -I$(src)/../.. \
13 -D__IN_RTAI__
14
15 obj-m += $(rtai_target).o
16
17 rtai_tasklets-objs := $(rtai_objs)
18 rtai_signal-objs := $(rtai_objs)

In addition, principlly .ko may not be linked into Linux kernel, it could be linked into some Linux Emulator(it could be completely refactor into GPLv2+), or some dumb kernel.

This topic is somewhat meaningless, what I say is:
1) The EROFS file system can be licensed as "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later", not GPL-v2 only;

2) Considering effectively, there are projects (the whole or parts of these projects) are GPL-v2 only effectively.

If there exist some problems, please point out.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 01:14:04 PM UTC, comment #28:

>>> 2) I think these following line is unconditional ...


>>This is about exporting symbols, not about linking to the kernel.


>I just want to say if you EXPORT_SYMBOL, you are using code in the kernel header files, and you are using GPLv2 only code.


EXPORT_SYMBOL is defined in include/linux/export.h, which is GPLv2 only.

This project is unrelated to me, I don't want to actually compile, run and check it. And your "conditional" doesn't actually make sense if we check whether a program is or not GPL free software.

Please refer to:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2

> The point is not whether the package uses kernel headers; the point is whether it makes a single executable with the kernel. The kernel modules clearly do.


No, I think the main idea is (if "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" is true), these projects use the headers of the Linux kernel then these package should not be compatible with GPLv3+.

-- Use a library” means that you're not copying any source directly, but instead interacting with it through linking, importing, or other typical mechanisms that bind the sources together when you compile or run the code.

Please Refer to:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 01:02:54 PM UTC, comment #27:

>> 2) I think these following line is unconditional ...


>This is about exporting symbols, not about linking to the kernel.


I just want to say if you EXPORT_SYMBOL, you are using code in the kernel header files, and you are using GPLv2 only code.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 12:43:07 PM UTC, comment #26:

> 1) It seems that kernel header files (GPLv2 only) are unconditionally included.


This is not relevant. I've already pointed this out. Please don't repeat it unless you can demonstrate my point was wrong.

> 2) I think these following line is unconditional ...


This is about exporting symbols, not about linking to the kernel.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 15 Jun 2018 11:46:15 AM UTC, comment #25:

Hi Ineiev,

> You can see that it's conditional.


1) It seems that kernel header files (GPLv2 only) are unconditionally included.

2) I think these following line is unconditional
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/malloc/malloc.c?revision=1&view=markup :
1430 #ifndef CONFIG_KBUILD
1431 #define CONFIG_KBUILD
1432 #endif
1433
1434 #ifdef CONFIG_KBUILD
1435 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtheap_init);
1436 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtheap_destroy);
1437 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtheap_alloc);
1438 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtheap_free);
1439 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtai_global_heap);
1440 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtai_global_heap_adr);
1441 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rtai_global_heap_size);
1442 #endif /* CONFIG_KBUILD */

By the way, I don't tend to dip into the other unrelated projects whether they are effectively GPLv2 only, However, these projects exist and they broke "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" if that is claimed somewhere. I think it is clear.

Could you kindly please consider hosting? I think if considering Linux kernel, there are many Savannah projects with exception.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 11:34:06 AM UTC, comment #24:

You can see that it's conditional.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 15 Jun 2018 09:42:49 AM UTC, comment #23:

Hi Ineiev,

>>> I think "Real Time Application Interface"... produces ko module.


>> I don't think so.


>OK, That's my guess but I am looking into these projects.


please refer to,

http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/sched/Makefile.kbuild?revision=1&view=markup

http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/tasklets/Makefile.kbuild?view=markup

http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/malloc/Makefile.kbuild?revision=1&view=markup

http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/malloc/malloc.c?revision=1&view=markup:
1425 #ifndef CONFIG_RTAI_MALLOC_BUILTIN
1426 module_init(__rtai_heap_init);
1427 module_exit(__rtai_heap_exit);
1428 #endif /* !CONFIG_RTAI_MALLOC_BUILTIN */

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 09:21:22 AM UTC, comment #22:

Hi Ineiev,

> I think "Real Time Application Interface"... produces ko module.


> I don't think so.


OK, That's my guess but I am looking into these projects.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 09:16:40 AM UTC, comment #21:

Hi Ineiev,

I summary my thoughts till now:

1) the EROFS file system can be licensed as "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later", not GPL-v2 only
(effectively or some other idea don't change the fact of GPLv2+).

2) the Savannah web pages currently don't express "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" directly, on:
http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/
or
https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php

3) considering effectively, there are projects (the whole or parts of these projects) are GPL-v2 only effectively, which are recently hosted, hosted, and still hosted by Savannah.

At last,

> We need reasons to convince Savannah admins.


(based on if "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" is true)
I could understand there are many exceptions on these projects, but with no exception on our project.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 09:03:25 AM UTC, comment #20:

> I think "Real Time Application Interface"... produces ko module.


I don't think so.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 15 Jun 2018 08:58:34 AM UTC, comment #19:

We don't need reasons to convince you. We need reasons to convince Savannah admins. In your latest comment (comment #18) you just repeat arguments I don't find really good.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 15 Jun 2018 08:51:59 AM UTC, comment #18:

Hi Ineiev,

What I say is the EROFS file system can be licensed as "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later", according to
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

And I still cannot find some words in the web pages that express "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" directly.

Furthermore, there are projects(historical exceptions or what, but I could refer to archive.org to find more evidence) hosted at Savannah that use "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later" is currently actually gplv2.

So I don't think there exists a strong reason that can convince me.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 08:42:15 AM UTC, comment #17:

Hi Ineiev,

First, gNewSense doesn't link to Linux, second, gNewSense is not a Linux distribution, it's a GNU/Linux distribution. We support your freedom of speech, but we don't lend our resources to developers who don't give the due credit to the GNU project.

Sorry about that, I mean a distribution using the Linux kernel --- GNU/Linux distribution is more properly, that is my mistake.

I want to say that gNewSense contains the linux kernel.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 08:39:24 AM UTC, comment #16:

Hi Ineiev,

I think "Real Time Application Interface" is only GPLv2-only, since it uses the Linux kernel header.

and I think it produces ko module.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 08:33:59 AM UTC, comment #15:

Hello, Gao Xiang;

> many projects are licensed on "GNU General Public License v2 or later" hosted on Savannah.


You evidently miss the point here: we do allow GPLv2+ packages; but your package is effectively GPLv2-only, that's what we can't host.

> I also found many Linux distributions on Savannah, eg.
> gNewSense


First, gNewSense doesn't link to Linux, second, gNewSense is not a Linux distribution, it's a GNU/Linux distribution. We support your freedom of speech, but we don't lend our resources to developers who don't give the due credit to the GNU project.

Groups like orinoco and qemu are very old, they may be thought of as historical exceptions. They don't justify any exceptions for new groups.

> it also has the Linux kernel headers dependency


The point is not whether the package uses kernel headers; the point is whether it makes a single executable with the kernel. The kernel modules clearly do.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 15 Jun 2018 04:57:26 AM UTC, comment #14:

Hi Ineiev,

Sorry about a lot comments.

I also found many Linux distributions on Savannah, eg.
gNewSense

Furthermore, I found a project called "Real Time Application Interface", which is also be approval.
https://savannah.gnu.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=14529

Unfortunately, it also has the Linux kernel headers dependency, eg.
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/tasklets/tasklets.c?revision=1&view=markup
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rtai/vulcano/base/sched/sched.c?view=markup

And they marked their project as "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later"

I could give more examples on this.

But I think EROFS has a valid License "GNU General Public License v2 or later", and many projects are licensed on "GNU General Public License v2 or later" hosted on Savannah.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 03:58:39 AM UTC, comment #13:

Hi Ineiev,

Linux headers are also existed in
qemu-2.12.0.tar.xz\qemu-2.12.0\linux-headers

https://download.qemu.org/qemu-2.12.0.tar.xz

and the license of qemu is also "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later"
https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/qemu

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 15 Jun 2018 03:50:34 AM UTC, comment #12:

Hi Ineiev,

I opened a discussion on
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2018-06/msg00001.html

I think EROFS should be valid to be licensed under GPLv2+, and there exist many projects licensed as GPLv2+ with the dependency of Linux kernel hosted on Savannah.

Could you please consider our hosting requirement?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 07:04:17 PM UTC, comment #11:

Hi Ineiev,

I really understand that concern.

But I saw there is no option of "GPLv1-only" but there is an existed option of "License: GNU General Public License v2 or later", I think it is also acceptable.

Actually, all the EROFS file system implementation (all code) is GPLv3+ compatible, except for the Linux kernel header(I cannot decide this).

Anyway, I got the conclusion that any Linux Kernel code currently should not be hosted at Savannah.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 06:52:28 PM UTC, comment #10:

It's nice that you found the requirements. So, they say that the package should be GPL-compatible, implying compatibility with at least version 3 and any later version.

We recommend GPLv3-or-later because we support the best version of copyleft we have; however, we also accept permissive licensing like Apache 2.0. In other words, "we recommend GPLv3+" doesn't mean we accept GPLv1-only.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 14 Jun 2018 06:27:47 PM UTC, comment #9:

Hi Ineiev,

I found the current hosting requirements,
https://savannah.gnu.org/register/requirements.php
it says "You will be presented with a choice of free software licenses for your project. For hosting on Savannah, you must use one of these licenses, which give the freedom to anyone to use, study, copy, and distribute the source code and distribute modified versions of it, and which are compatible with the GNU GPL. "
In addition to that, it also says "We recommend GPLv3-or-later; in any case, we require the “or any later version” formulation for the GNU GPL, GNU AGPL, and GNU LGPL. You will remain the copyright holder of whatever you create for your project."

We support free software, could you consider our hosting requirement?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 05:42:18 PM UTC, comment #8:

Hi,

I could say something...sorry...
Which means all Linux kernel code will be excluded from Savannah?

I support GNU/Linux OS, but it is awkward for its kernel...

I haven't seen "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" in http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 05:36:15 PM UTC, comment #7:

> "GPLv2 or later" license can copy and use a library under GPLv2 only.


Yes, but the result will be GPLv2-only. Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility. GPLv2-only is not GPLv3+ compatible.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 14 Jun 2018 05:31:55 PM UTC, comment #6:

> This file system could be compiled as a independent ko module


It can't be used independently, it links with GPLv2-only code, so no matter how you release your own code, it will effectively be GPLv2-only. For example, people won't be able to link GPLv3 software with your package.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Thu 14 Jun 2018 05:30:52 PM UTC, comment #5:

Hi Ineiev,

A bit more to say... Sorry...
I also looked into the matrix, if I'm not mistaken,
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility

"GPLv2 or later" license can copy and use a library under GPLv2 only.
And I think GPLv2+ is compatible with GPLv3 and future versions.

In addition, EROFS .ko can be individually executable as a package.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 05:11:00 PM UTC, comment #4:

Hi Ineiev,
I thought over again, the ko should be only licensed as GPLv2+ since I include GPLv2-only header files.

However I noticed some expressions in http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/

--- Use a license compatible with the GNU GPL, and use the "or any later version" formulation in your license notices.

GPLv2+ is compatible with the GNU GPL, and I use the "or any later version" formulation.

--- GNU GPL-compatible license: your license should be listed as compatible at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.

I mean all parts of EROFS code can be used for later GPLv3+ use, except for Linux Kernel Header Files( that is not the part of my project, too ).

I think no violation on expressions above...

Thanks,

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 12:51:27 PM UTC, comment #3:

Hi Ineiev,
This file system could be compiled as a independent ko module, which can be GPLv2+ and published independently.
I also see some projects hosted on savannah, eg.
1) http://www.nongnu.org/orinoco/
2) -email is unavailable-
kernel/drivers/input/misc/yealink.*

Thanks,

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Thu 14 Jun 2018 10:33:01 AM UTC, comment #2:

Hello, Gao Xiang!

I'm afraid your package has GPLv2-only dependencies, so the executable as whole will have to be GPLv2-only, therefore incompatible with GPLv3+.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 05 Jun 2018 03:37:15 PM UTC, comment #1:

Hi Administrator,
I posted the version v2 tar file.
BTW, the EROFS file system can be used in completely Free Operating system, it designs as a part of GNU/Linux kernel.

Thanks,

(file #44302)

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>
Fri 01 Jun 2018 02:37:11 AM UTC, original submission:

A new project has been registered at Savannah
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves
or discards the registration.

Registration Administration

While this item will be useful to track the registration process,
approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific Group Administration page, accessible only to site administrators,
effectively logged as site administrators (superuser):

Registration Details

  • Name: Extendable Read-Only File System
  • System Name: erofs
  • Type: non-GNU software and documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v2 or later

Description:

A read-only file system EROFS
(Extendable Read-Only File System) designed for the Linux kernel focuses
more on performance than purely on saving storage space as much as possible.

It also adds the compression support with a different decompression approach called z_erofs.

Other Comments:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776480425624&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776487625669&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776483825648&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776486425660&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776490125680&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776490125681&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776492925697&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776495825714&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776500125757&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776501625764&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776506425783&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776510525801&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776518125837&w=2

Tarball URL:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=152776480425624&w=2

Xiang Gao <hsiangkao>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #44302:  erofs-2.tar added by hsiangkao (170KiB - application/x-tar - v2 - Add COPYING (but since EROFS will be a part of GNU/Linux kernel, it will be shown at the main directory of GNU/Linux kernel))
file #44287:  erofs.tar added by hsiangkao (160KiB - application/x-tar - source file tar)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -email is unavailable- added by karl (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by ineiev (Posted a comment)
  • -email is unavailable- added by hsiangkao (Yu Chao)
  • -email is unavailable- added by hsiangkao (Voted in favor of this item)
  • -email is unavailable- added by hsiangkao (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

     

     

    Follow 8 latest changes.

    Date Changed by Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced by
    2018-06-20 ineiev StatusIn Progress => Cancelled
        Open/ClosedOpen => Closed
    2018-06-14 ineiev StatusNone => In Progress
        Assigned toNone => ineiev
    2018-06-05 hsiangkao Attached File- => Added erofs-2.tar, #44302
    2018-06-03 hsiangkao Attached File- => Added erofs.tar, #44287
    2018-06-02 hsiangkao Carbon-Copy- => Added -email is unavailable-
        Carbon-Copy- => Added hsiangkao

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.3