On Monday 26 May 2008 17:49:29 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 17:13 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote: > > My suggestion: Provide an additional binary package for the ntfsprogs > > mount command (e.g., ntfsprogs-mount) which would have the mount > > command and man-page. Installation of this "new" package should be > > made to conflict with ntfs-3g so that both could not be installed at > > the same time. For F10 (an probably F11) continue with the current > > default installs ... that is, both ntfs-3g and ntfsprogs but not > > ntfsprogs-mount. > > I disagree. Having two methods for ntfs mount seems like a recipe for > failure. I looked at both of them, and determined that the ntfs-3g mount > mechanism was far more robust and better maintained. I don't really > think we benefit at all from enabling the ntfsprogs mount functionality. OK, you sold me. I learned many years ago that it really does not matter how "fast" something runs if its operation is not reliably correct. > > Or, to put it more succinctly, when we've had any problems with ntfs-3g > mount, Szaka has been extremely helpful in working with us to resolve > the issues. We've also had issues with the ntfsprogs suite, and received > zero help or feedback on our patches. "Supporting" the ntfsprogs mount > will simply lead to more bugs, and I've got enough of those as is. :) Even more sold. I have already had a minor problem with ntfsclone where is would not restore to a (vmware virtual disk) partition which was exactly the same size/same geometry as the original. The work around was to make the partition slightly larger, do the ntfsclone restore (which now worked), and then fix things up with ntfsresize. > > I'm hopeful that in time, the conflict/competition between ntfs-3g and > ntfsprogs will all balance itself out. If we need to enable the > ntfsprogs mount, it is only a minor amount of work, and could be done > quickly. I sure hope the issues are resolved and the two projects merge. > > ~spot > > p.s. I'm hedging my bets on ntfs-3g. They show community and growth, > where ntfsprogs doesn't. As I said, it was somewhat surprising to have a project be more or less stagnate and then, suddenly, issue a huge change. This alone makes ntfsprogs a bit questionable. The ntfsprogs mount command is a minor issue. The real question to me is how good the code is in libntfs as compared to libntfs-3g. Gene -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
