Am Samstag, dem 28.12.2024 um 22:09 -0700 schrieb Nicholas D Steeves: > Control: tag -1 trixie > > Dear Kernel team, I've CCed you because I'm hoping you know what > upstream support for reiserfs will look like during trixie's life- > cycle. > > Hi Felix, > Hi Nicholas,
I can't find a response from Kernel Team. But it looks like trixie will ship with 6.12. It's LTS and is the last Kernel with ReiserFS support. So I guess it's still possible to mount a reiserfs during trixie's life-cycle. > Felix Zielcke <fziel...@z-51.de> writes: > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:17:04 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves > > <s...@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > This should be discussed now, if we still want btrfs-convert to > > work > > with it. > > > > I don't mind shipping just libreiserfs without mkfs. > > Is btrfs-convert really the best way for anyone to migrate to btrfs? > From what I can tell the answer to this is still firmly "no", so I'm > actually in favour of dropping it completely. > > Are there any other consumers of libreiserfs? > reiserfsprogs and btrfs-convert are the only ones. If it would have been my decision, I wouldn't have added btrfs-convert support in the first place. So from my POV I totally agree to remove it. > > ReiserFS isn't year 2038 safe so new filesystems shouldn't be > > created > > anymore. > > Agreed. My primary concern is that there will be little no upstream > reiserfs support during the latter stages of trixie's life-cycle. > Why > wouldn't it be best to let bookworm be last release with a > libreiserfs > and -progs? The kernel in trixie seems like it may continue to > support > reiserfs, so users could still mount, backup, reformat, restore. > I'm a bit unsure if we should at least ship with reiserfsck. But if people still use it >= 2038 then it would do more damage then fixing your fs. But I'm totally open to completely RM it. Regards, Felix
