FUSE? [LWN.net]

FUSE?

Posted Aug 20, 2019 3:26 UTC (Tue) by Paf (subscriber, #91811)
In reply to: FUSE? by kloczek
Parent article: Stapelberg: distri: a Linux distribution to research fast package management

It’s ... not about that? Though development *might require that*, since fast iteration requires reloading code. Additionally, that’s an argument *for* using FUSE, not against using it?

FUSE is usually easier to develop within and intrinsically safer in several ways. If it’s fast enough that it’s not the bottleneck, then *great*.

to post comments

FUSE?

Posted Aug 20, 2019 6:13 UTC (Tue) by kloczek (guest, #6391) [Link] (4 responses)

So why some package management aspects needs to be done in kernel space?

FUSE?

Posted Aug 20, 2019 7:07 UTC (Tue) by edomaur (subscriber, #14520) [Link] (3 responses)

These are *filesystem* aspects, in fact, not package management per se. And the kind of directory fusion evoked by this project could very well benefits other projects, like, for example, Docker-like systems, read only application deployment, immutable systems.

FUSE?

Posted Aug 20, 2019 21:12 UTC (Tue) by kloczek (guest, #6391) [Link]

Why package management must be part of the file systems?

FUSE?

Posted Aug 20, 2019 21:14 UTC (Tue) by kloczek (guest, #6391) [Link] (1 responses)

A so it is docker problem not a package management.
Good to know.

FUSE?

Posted Aug 28, 2019 12:11 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

It's not a "problem", it's a useful new filesystem feature, which, like most filesystem features, has multiple potential use cases. It's no more "package management" or a "docker problem" than overlayfs is a "live CD problem".

I can easily see you in the 1960s complaining that nobody needs these newfangled "file" thingies and the need for them over proper hardwired partitions laid out at disk format time is a problem with these newfangled programs that want such ridiculous fripperies.