On Sun, 2013-11-24 at 12:23 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 11/22/2013 03:35 PM, David Lehman wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 14:12 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>> On 11/08/2013 04:30 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>>> This involves a patch to pykickstart and a patch to anaconda.
>>>
>>> The patch for anaconda was created on anaconda-20.25.6-1 and the patch
>>> for pykickstart was created on r-1.99.44-1 and should easily apply or
>>> rebase.
> I am not the pykickstart maintainer, so my opinion is mostly commentary,
> but I don't think these patches add anything that a) is already present
> for other device types and b) cannot be achieved in numerous other ways.
> If you have an existing btrfs volume with a "root" subvolume and you
> want to install a new OS into the same volume, you can easily either a)
> create a "newroot" subvolume (or any of a million variations thereof) or
> b) remove or rename the old "root" subvolume prior to performing the new
> installation during which you create a new "root" subvolume.
I always said that you can do this manually such as first coming up in
rescue mode deleting the root subvol and then rebooting to do the
install but being able to specify --reclaim just saves time and effort.
A second point, yes you can use a different subvol name but then you
still have the disk SPACE that is used by the old subvol.
My question to you is not "why do this" but "why not do this"
Because someone will have to maintain this new code and that burden is
not (IMO) justified by the functionality the patches provide.
But, if the anaconda patch is added, then that will be a motivator
for
the pykickstart patch to be added.
You're not giving a reason the patches should be accepted -- you're
talking about a way to skip over that (critical) question and straight
to "now how do we get 'em in?"