On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 20:43 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 09:48 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> >> As for the installation QA I don't think the
> >> file system itself is a major source
> >> of churn / bugs.
> > The people who do the installation QA are the ones who are telling you
> > differently...
> Care to provide any details? I mean I different partitions setups /
> raid / lvm / iscsi / $somethingthatalomostnooneuses ok .. but the fs ?
> All that anaconda has to do is call mkfs.whatever and add the proper
> name to fstab ... unless the mkfs.whatever itself is broken there
> shouldn't be much difference.
Sure, so we immediately have twice as many mkfs'es that could be broken.
We also have to make sure the tools are available to the installer
environment and the initramfs; that was what went wrong with LVM thinp
in F21 - the tools were missing from the initramfs because dracut
over-optimized. There's always one more darn thing.
Yes, difference between container/non-container and complex filesystems
like btrfs is more significant, but any difference adds failure points.
OK ... (I said "not a major source of bugs" not "never has any