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

Re: btrfs

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:01 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe one of us misread Russell. :) I thought he meant "While I
> > understand that you'll be crapped on if a kernel upload eats data, I
> > think it would be ok to ...". As I read it, he's not expecting them to
> > do anything *more* than they already do, just to relax the protection
> > argument a little when it comes to people who are already aiming at
> > their feet.
> Yes.  Also anyone who really wants their data to be safe won't use Unstable 
> anyway.
> BTRFS is a little different to most kernel features, it is significant (both 
> in terms of potential benefits and changes), it has a high profile, and it 
> needs a lot of testing.
> I would not consider asking the kernel team to do anything special for a 
> random device driver or anything else of similar scope.
> But it has been pointed out a few times (including a couple of private 
> messages) that experimental has what I desire (thanks for the advice 
> everyone).  Now I've discovered that firmware-linux-nonfree doesn't seem to 
> be available so I can't use my e100 Ethernet ports (which are essential for 
> the test machine in question).

That package is currently called firmware-linux but will be renamed
shortly because we now also package the DFSG-free firmware from the
Linux tree as firmware-linux-free.  (firmware-linux will then become a


Ben Hutchings
To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: