On 29 June 2020 17:36:15 CEST, Armin Wehrfritz <dkxls23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> It is not acceptable that there is a range of time that people would >> literally not be able to mount their file systems because the kernel >> module would not build. >I would say that is a rather unlikely scenario to happen given how engaged the OpenZFS developers are in maintaining Linux kernel support, and also considering how many kernel developers there are that run Fedora. The time delay is more with respect to OpenZFS releases rather than having patches available that make OpenZFS work with the Linux kernel. > >> Fedora does not allow out of tree kernel modules to be packaged for >> the distribution. This has been the case since Fedora 7. >That is a strong argument. But obviously more a political rather than a technical one. > >> That does not change the fact that OpenZFS is a very *special* out of >> tree kernel module that would put a major crimp in doing a lot of >> things Fedora does now, like testing and validating snapshots of the >> Linux kernel as it is being developed. Fedora is a place where we >> actively work with our upstreams, and we stay close to those projects >> as part of maintaining software for them. Having kzfs in Fedora would >> strain that immensely. >Well, Fedora could become the platform where OpenZFS developers work closely with kernel developers. :) > >All that said, I very well understand the hesitations of Fedora, and upstream kernel, developers to accommodate ZFS. I actually agree that in the current situation with licenses being what they are, and thus ZFS being an out-of-tree filesystem, it would not be wise to have ZFS as the default root file system in Fedora. > >I personally have my /home filesystem on ZFS, and keep the root filesystem on an ext4 partition, as I am confident that I can reinstall Fedora in a reasonable amount of time, but I care about the data in my home/working directories and value immensely ZFS features with respect to data integrity and backups. > >Regarding the current proposal at hand, i.e. making btrfs the default filesystem, I am actually in favour of that change. The next generation filesystems (i.e. btrfs and ZFS) have many desirable features ([1] lists a number of them, and that article is already quite old) and it's about time to switch also the desktop system to these filesystem IMHO. > >Just my two cents. For me the licensing issues are the big issues with ZFS. Or rather the licensing issue is so big for me that I haven't considered the technical merits of zfs for many years. While, if a way could be found, zfs could be an option I would be opposed to having it as default because of the licensing issues. I understand that not everyone will agree and that this discussion has gone off on a tangent. I just needed to write this for some reason. M > >-Armin > >[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/bitrot-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/ >_______________________________________________ >devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
