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

On 8/27/06, Jordan K. Hubbard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2006, at 3:49 AM, Tabitha McNerney wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> Don't count on that.  Ryan and others are correct - UFS is deprecated and,
> for the last 2 or so releases, has been less of a good idea than you might
> think.  It's virtually unmaintained, has a number of known bugs, and is NOT
> the same UFS you will find on the other *BSDs.  They have a much more up to
> date UFS[2] code base and support features like Soft Updates and very large
> files.  The UFS code in MacOSX has not been updated for a long time and
> there are no plans to update it (remove, yes, update, no).  HFSX now more
> than adequately covers the case where case sensitivity is required, which
> pretty much put the last nail in UFS's coffin.
>
> More importantly, I don't think that either UFS or HFS are the future and
> I think everyone would prefer that the number of active, legacy filesystems
> be kept to a minimum.
>

Jordan, I am most grateful to your  extraordinary helpful  reply. I  truly
did not know that UFS was not recommended and wasn't aware that it is
deprecated. I can now plan a future around HFSX so that I can have case
sensitivity and journaling (no need to fsck!). It would be nice to have the
option to mount HFSX disc volumes to other OS platforms besides Mac OS X
since Mac Intel hardware means that the world of opportunities opens up for
developers who want to move and/or share their data cross platform (e.g.,
with the wonderful development of Parallels and the great news that VMware
is bringing Workstation to the Mac Intel)!!!

Best regards,

T.

- Jordan
>
>