[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reiser4-enabled Debian Unstable (Sid) netboot iso

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:22:21 +0100
> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
>> Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> (2016-01-11):
>> > This is somewhat off-topic, but why was ReiserFS support removed
>> > from d-i? I am a big fan of Reiser3 personally, but I use XFS now.
>> In linux's changelog:
>> | linux (3.10.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
>> | […]
>> |   * udeb: Remove obsolete and unsupported drivers and filesystems
>> |     - Remove ppa from scsi-modules
>> |     - Remove floppy-modules, irda-modules, parport-modules,
>> plip-modules, |       qnx4-modules, reiserfs-modules, ufs-modules
>> | […]
>> |  -- Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>  Tue, 16 Jul 2013 02:06:53
>> +0100
>> It seems it was already being phased out in d-i a few years before
>> that: https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/News/2010/20101030
> That is interesting. I distinctly remember the 'ReiserFS' filesystem
> option being present in the Wheezy d-i. The description went something
> like this: 'Journaling filesystem created by Hans Reiser' or something
> along those lines. Your research has revealed otherwise- but I have my
> suspicions. I'm sure I didn't make up that experience.
> Perhaps I somehow inadvertently customised my copy of d-i or did an
> advanced install or something, but I doubt it. I was even more inept a
> year ago than I am now.
> Why was Reiser3 phased out? It wasn't *grossly* unstable or anything,
> and despite lack of maintenance it was still a good little filesystem
> that could have stayed for longer.
> And why UFS? It may be obsolete, but I should think it would be
> relatively stable. Surely a filesystem should only be removed when it
> is actually a steaming wreck,

"not just when the devs don't like it anymore."

You just hit the nail on the head ;-)

Seems only large organizations have the financial resources to
whitewash their monstrous past and have their code accepted. For an
unfortunate individual like Reiser, well, tough luck -- as FOSS' often
touted technical meritocracy of code selection process is simply
trumped over by a selective 'morality', selective 'altruism', and/or
'religious' (or X) other sort of *unspoken* agreement/fanaticism by
upstream maintainers (gate keepers?).

Oh, yes, the 'extra cherry on top' by someone 'commenting' at the end
-- throwing extra dirt -- dissing the individual and/or his work/code.
That's the pattern I have observed.

Best Professional Regards.

Jose R R
Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way!

Reply to: