On 07/09/2012 05:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> And it's a lot more expensive.
I prefect expense over corrupted filesystems or other equally not nice
I prefer a well written program that doesn't require expensive bodges to
keep my data safe. What's your point?
> Just because there is an expensive workaround doesn't mean
> a bug. And arguably even with hardware fixup it's still a bug and
> appallingly bad practice.
I don't disagree but then the Fedora ARM SIG is not about development
and changes of e2fsprogs and if that is what you're wishing to discuss
here the discussion should likely be taken to the upstream e2fsprogs
Maybe, but is that really how upstreaming works? I'm a Fedora user,
therefore I'm reporting a bug to Fedora. Is it not from there the
responsibility of the distro package maintainer to see to it that the
fix is pursued upstream?
> Let's not sweep this under the carpet, especially in
> critical as e2fsprogs.
I'm not sure where you get the idea it's being swept under the carpet?
Saying there is a bodge available to make it safe sounded a bit like it.
There's a means of mitigation of the problem that is available
in the standard Fedora ARM kernels and has been for some time, and
most of the rest of the discussion should be happening in the
locations where it's better dealt with.
And to think the output of this level of commitment to doing something
right then goes on to become part of a supposedly enterprise grade
distribution at some point...
Having said that, since I don't deem that good enough for my own distro,
I guess by the "eat my own dogfood" approach, I'll go and pursue it