Jeremy Katz wrote: > 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 I agree, anaconda should do what e2fsprogs does by default. Sorry for the noise. :) -Eric _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
