On 12 September 2013 17:17, Tim Gardner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/12/2013 08:47 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>> On 12 September 2013 16:37, Colin Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Debian has removed reiserfs support from its kernel packages and its
>>> installer (http://bugs.debian.org/717517). I don't really want to keep
>>> maintaining it without Debian; for instance it would mean adding support
>>> for http://bugs.debian.org/696123 as an Ubuntu-specific patch once we
>>> have the underpinnings done. Does anyone feel desperately that we have
>>> to keep this or shall I just go ahead and drop it?
>> I've informally raised this with #ubuntu-kernel team on irc /
>> one-to-one conversions as well. I think the rough consensus was that
>> we should follow suite and also drop reiserfs support from both our
>> kernel configuration and installer.
>> Not sure if the kernel configuration should be kept in-tact because of
>> hardware enablement stack backports, I would hope that it wouldn't be
>> Ditto other kernel modules that were dropped from the debian kernel
>> config at the same time as reiserfs.
>> I agree that reiserfs support should simply be dropped, and ideally
>> should have been done earlier in the cycle when the same change was
>> done in debian.
> As was pointed out on IRC this is the original email from Ben Hutchings
> regarding his decision to remove reiserfs from kernel udebs:
> I'm not really in favor of entirely dropping reiserfs support from the
> kernel, e.g., CONFIG_REISERFS_FS=n. Doubtless, there are still folks out
> there using it that would be pretty annoyed on upgrading to find they
> can no longer access their file system.
> I am, however, OK with dropping resierfs from any udebs that we produce.
Indeed it looks like I misinterpreted Ben's email, since
CONFIG_REISERFS_FS=m is still build by the linux kernel in Debian. And
it really is just about the installer/udebs.
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel