On 04/09/2015 10:30 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.04.2015 um 12:17 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 04/09/2015 08:54 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Of course, this only works for GPT systems, i.e. modern systems, and
modern systems probably wouldn't run ext234 anyway, so maybe it's not
worth it... Actually neither xfs nor btrfs nor reiserfs appear to
require an fsck still, it's only ext234 and vfat. And I figure it's
not worth fixing this for ext234 now...
Now I just have to ask since I have a hard time understanding where you
are coming from regarding your view on filesystems in general, their
future thus the upstream choices you are making seem quite illogical to
me...
What is your definition of modern system?
Why are you under the assumption that modern systems wont run those
filesystems?
Where is that assumption coming from?
What is the time frame you are basing your assumptions on?
they are just wrong because in production environments *virtually
nobody* will jump to BTRFS that soon, not for upgraded and not for new
installed systems, there will be a high percentage of admins stick at
ext4 just because they know it, can handle it and it works
and much more important: BTRFS *currently* don't exist, not for
serious environments because it's not finished and so declare anything
which is production ready and everywhere in use as "legacy" and "not
worth" is more than questionable
My above questions where directed directly at Lennart since you cannot
know if Lennart's assumption which he bases his decisions on are
premature,correct, wrong or misguided until you know what those
assumptions are.
Once those assumptions are known one can compare it with ones own as
well as facts and have a higher level discussion about what makes
suitable upstreams defaults and why.
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
