On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 10:25 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: > > Jeremy Katz wrote: > >> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 11:40 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>> Larger inodes should help out with selinux and/or beagle attributes a bit > >>> (xattrs can be stored in-inode) and also makes upgrade to ext4 possible > >>> (which needs an in-inode extent list) > >> So the obvious question is "if this is so useful, why not have mke2fs do > >> the right thing without us having to pass more arguments to it"? > > > > Ok, I can do that if you prefer. Although if you don't plan to migrate > > to ext4, and don't use xattrs, you might want the smaller inodes to save > > space, since inode overhead on ext$FOO is nontrivial. > > > > I'm not sure where upstream is going on this one, but I can sort it out > > if you'd rather not have it in anaconda. > > Why not do something like the patches at > http://people.redhat.com/pjones/fsprofile/ instead, so next time the > ext3 guys come up with a new option, we won't have to explicitly add > support for it as well? > > Granted, to be truly useful we either need "include" directives in > mke2fs.conf or a command line argument to specify a config file. Either > (or both) would allow a user to put mke2fs.conf in an updates.img , and > so they could define their own options that way. This only makes a difference if e2fsprogs ships a config file that has the new options included in it. If they don't, we *still* have to make change, just now it's hidden away in some copy of a config file which is going to atrophy over time Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
