On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 20:43 +0100, drago01 wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 issues"). -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
