Am Dienstag, den 28.11.2017, 23:13 +0100 schrieb Hilko Bengen: > libguestfs is designed to handle disk images of virtual machines and > it > makes sense to include at least support for common filesystems. You > and > I may not particularly like the filesystem, but btrfs is one of the > more > commonly used filesystems.
See e.g. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main%5FPage „Not too many companies have said that they are using Btrfs in production…“ > See [1] for why the binary packages built from the libguestfs source > packages are split the way they are right now. But size is not the only criteria - see below. > > There are systems which explicitly exclude btrfs from setup. > > I'm not sure I follow: Do you mean that some sort of policy > forbids/prevents installation of anything btrfs-related? **YES** I'm maintaining an mid-size installation. For these systems 'btrfs- tools' is explicitly removed: - not used, because I rely on ext4 and mdraid - limiting the installed packages is improving the security (reducing surface) - it has had introduced a boot delay (at this time trusty was used, not retested actually). In my opinion a package maintainer shouldn't nail a dependency if the package may work without. It is simple discrete mathematics that he couldn't overview the exponentially growing diversity of installations 😉 Best Regards, H.-DIrk Schmitt
