On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Niels de Vos <nde...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:16:54AM +0530, Nigel Babu wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:07:41PM +0530, Nithya Balachandran wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I recently debugged a problem  where linkfiles were not created properly
>> > a gluster volume created using bricks running UFS . Whenever a linkfile was
>> > created, the sticky bit was not set on it causing the same file to be
>> > listed twice.
>> > From https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=chmod&sektion=2
>> > The FreeBSD VM system totally ignores the sticky bit (S_ISVTX) for
>> > executables. On UFS-based file systems (FFS, LFS) the sticky bit may only
>> > be set upon directories.
>> > Based on this I do not think we can support UFS bricks for gluster volumes.
>> > However, I have not worked with FreeBSD so I would like folks who have to
>> > let me know if this is correct or if there is something I am missing.
>> > I was able to force the sticky bit on a file using a testfile attached to
>> >  but it is not straightforward and I am reluctant to propose this.
>> > Thanks,
>> > Nithya
>> >  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176011
>> Giving this thread a signal boost. We should think about this if we're going
>> continue to support *BSD.
>> Emmanuel, I know you work on NetBSD, but do you have thoughts to add here?
> We did get some regular contributions to have Gluster function on
> FreeBSD, but they seem to be more sporadic now. If nobody steps up, I
> would suggest to keep compiling on FreeBSD, but nothing more. Maybe at a
> later time someone shows more interest.
> NetBSD on the other hand already runs some of the regression tests. And
> it seems to hit valid problems in the code that we for whatever lucky
> reason do not hit (yet?) on Linux. I see some value in the NetBSD
> environment, and if the infra team with help from Manu can keep it
> up-to-date it would be good to have it running.
+1 to this approach regarding BSDs.
Gluster-devel mailing list