Re: ext3 on install
#include <hallo.h>
Craig Dickson wrote on Tue Sep 25, 2001 um 12:45:59PM:
> It's easy if you're used to building your own kernels and applying
> patches to sources, but I'm sure there are a lot of less-technical users
> who would prefer to use the standard kernel-image packages. If these
> packages don't have ext3, those users are effectively out of luck.
Okay, but as long Ext3 is a kinde experimental, it will remain in a
separated kernel-image package. "apt-get install kernel-image.*ext3"
shouldn't be too complicated for users, IMHO.
> filesystems at installation time, which you can't do if the kernel image
> on the installation CD doesn't support ext3. Sure, you can convert ext2
When Woody comes, there will probably be a different flavour on each
CD-ROM. So you have 5 CDs and depending on which you insert, you will
get one of [ default | ide | ide-pci | reiserfs | udma100-ext3 ]
installation systems.
> really would be nice not to have to go through that extra step. New users
> shouldn't have to think of ext3 as something that requires extra work on
> their part.
People that don't like any extra work should not touch the config of a
running system. Changing to another FS needs always some extra work, at
least the journal creation (10 seconds) in the case of Ext3.
> packages, and it's great that we have them. I don't use them myself only
> because I don't use Debian-packaged kernel sources; I use Linus'
> official releases together with the ext3 patches created by the ext3
> developers.
Please learn about what a patch-package is. You don't need
Debian-packaged kernel sources to use the patch-packages. A patch package
contains the same patch file with some nifty scripts for make-kpkg, but
does not require it.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
"Millionen von Fliegen, die um den Dreck schwirren,
können sich nicht irren"
(Auswertung der Win-95 Verkaufszahlen, in Chip 8/96)
Reply to: