Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES

Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES

[Jody Bruchon]

All options to support FAT filesystems and the VFAT extensions had no 
code associated with them and thus were removed.

That leaves only one CONFIG_NOT_YET item: CONFIG_MODULES, which is also 
a trigger for the Kconfig "tristate" system. Because removing this item 
requires also removing the Kconfig tristate capability, and we may want 
modules one day, I intend to remove CONFIG_NOT_YET but leave 
CONFIG_MODULES included, with a Big Fat Warning(TM) that it is as-yet 
unimplemented.

Jody Bruchon

Re: Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES

[Petr Koval]

Jody Bruchon wrote:
> All options to support FAT filesystems and the VFAT extensions had no
> code associated with them and thus were removed.
>
> That leaves only one CONFIG_NOT_YET item: CONFIG_MODULES, which is
> also a trigger for the Kconfig "tristate" system. Because removing
> this item requires also removing the Kconfig tristate capability, and
> we may want modules one day, I intend to remove CONFIG_NOT_YET but
> leave CONFIG_MODULES included, with a Big Fat Warning(TM) that it is
> as-yet unimplemented.
>
> Jody Bruchon

is it possible to have (V)FAT support later?

Petr Koval

Re: Removed MSDOS/FAT/VFAT support; keeping CONFIG_MODULES

[Jody Bruchon]

On 02/17/12 11:58, Petr Koval wrote:
> is it possible to have (V)FAT support later?
>
> Petr Koval
Yes, if a driver is written for it (something which I eventually intend 
to do), then it will be implemented. At this time, I am focusing my 
efforts on cleaning the cruft out. Since one of the less emphasized 
goals of ELKS is to be an easy-to-understand kernel for educational 
purposes, removing these junky items cluttering the menus and code will 
help with that process in many ways. For me personally, I find the 
existence of options to compile in features that literally DO NOT EXIST 
to be very annoying. When a FAT filesystem driver is being written, the 
menu option for compiling it in will be added back as well.

 From what I understand, everyone now working on ELKS is fairly new to 
the project, or has not worked with it actively for quite some time. We 
need to be able to see where we are so we know where to go, without 
having to sift through false positives like "elksfs" and "VFAT" that are 
in reality non-existent or might as well be rendered the same.

In summary: let me clean the code up first, then we'll worry about a FAT 
filesystem implementation. :-)

Jody Bruchon