Re: DarwinPorts (MacPorts) Advisory: Stay with at least Xcode 2.2.1 on Intel (if not PPC)

Citando Tabitha McNerney :
> On 8/27/06, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >What do you think you are gaining by using UFS? Apple technical
> >support has always actively recommended against the use of UFS. I do
> >not understand why Apple engineering ever made the option available.
> 
> Ryan, UFS has a rich history with *BSD platforms including NeXTSTEP.
> Darwin's implementation of UFS is similar to FreeBSD's with the difference
> being that Darwin UFS is big endian regardless if a disc volume formatted
> with Darwin UFS is big or little endian (e.g., PPC or Intel). Thus, I can
> not in any way believe that MacPorts on Mac Intel hardware running Mac OS X
> 10.4.5 or higher should have any problem building ports on a volume that is
> formatted with the Darwin UFS. Darwin UFS has always been case sensitive and
> if I recall correctly, HFSX is still quite new (introduced a year or two
> ago?) so when you think about it, go back to when Apple acquired NeXT and
> they made Mac OS X 10.0 ... and 10.1 and Jaguar 10.2 -- there was no other
> case sensitive file system option besides Darwin UFS. I'm not even sure if
> Panther 10.3 had HFSX or not.

hfs with case sensitivity appeared with tiger. I remember that when
upgrading from panther, I chose to use this option. Funnily, OSX did not
support it very well and some programs were having strange behaviour. So
I came back to hfs+, and another partition in ufs for sharing with
netBSD and installing things requiring Case sensitivity (pkgsrc for
example).
 
> Also, HFS+ does not support sparse files (Darwin UFS does!) and if you look
> at Apple's evolution of the Disk Utility app, you can see how sparse files
> and disc images have come along as a new option when imaging the file
> system.
> 
> I am most certain that Jordan K. Hubbard can shed more light on Darwin UFS
> and if it was no longer needed then why is it that Leopard is not going to
> kill off UFS?
> 
> My view of this is that HFS, being closed and proprietary, is somewhat of an
> anomaly and NeXT merging with Apple decided to keep HFS for the sake of
> transitioning people from legacy Apple file systems (Mac OS 8, OS 9)
> to OS X.

I would not say anomaly, but in my mind, hfs[+x] is comparable with
ntfs. A particular system prefers to be installed on such a fs, but no
other system really support it. And it seems Apple is in favour of
people having multiple OSes on their machines, so either Apple should
implement drivers for hfs for other systems, either continue supporting
ufs.

Emmanuel