On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Chris Lumens <clumens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> diff --git a/pyanaconda/storage/formats/fs.py b/pyanaconda/storage/formats/fs.py
>> index c3ea79c..0d01fd4 100644
>> --- a/pyanaconda/storage/formats/fs.py
>> +++ b/pyanaconda/storage/formats/fs.py
>> @@ -1101,7 +1101,7 @@ class BTRFS(FS):
>> _linuxNative = True
>> _bootable = False
>> _maxLabelChars = 256
>> - _supported = False
>> + _supported = True
>> _dump = True
>> _check = True
>> _packages = ["btrfs-progs"]
>> @@ -1125,15 +1125,6 @@ class BTRFS(FS):
>> argv = ["-r", "%dm" % (self.targetSize,), self.device]
>> return argv
>>
>> - @property
>> - def supported(self):
>> - """ Is this filesystem a supported type? """
>> - supported = self._supported
>> - if flags.cmdline.has_key("btrfs"):
>> - supported = self.utilsAvailable
>> -
>> - return supported
>> -
>> register_device_format(BTRFS)
>
> This looks like it would work. I wonder if it's the right time to do
> this, though. What's btrfs support look like in the kernel and user
> space tools? Has it stabilized?
>
Yes as of 2.6.35 it's mostly feature complete and very stable.
Hopefully by the time F15 actually gets released we'll have a working
fsck as well. Thanks,
Josef
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
