Re: RFC: Move towards vmblock-fuse

[Dmitry T. <dt...@vm...>]

Hi Dominique,

On Tuesday 20 January 2009 23:58:35 Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
> >>> On 1/20/2009 at 11:45 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dt...@vm...> wrote:
> >
> > - DND code needs to try accessing new vmblock-fuse location before
> > falling back to the legacy vmblock location.
> >
> > - Our startup scripts need to verify presence of FUSE module and
> > compatible version of libfuse and load and mount vmblock-fuse instead of
> > vmblock if FUSE
>
> I'm all in favor of a solution that works out in long-term. And fuse seems
> to become stronger and more stable with every release. So supporting it
> (and in case of lack of 'something' contributing it straight to fuse
> instead of hacking around) would probably be the very best way to go
> forward.
>
> The question would be: how long do you want to maintain both tracks? Why
> having the 'fall back' mechanism in? I think we could also just argue that
> from open-vm-tools-<random version> on, fuse is required dependency. Or at
> least have the code nicely factorized for DnD that it's easy removable
> (remove complexity whenever possible).
>

We need to maintain the fall back mechanism for some time so users who might 
not be comfortable with using fuse or users who experience problems with it 
could have a way out until the issue is resolved.

-- 
Dmitry