Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] nilfs-utils moving in core
Am Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:26:00 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>:
I second this. If the reason for moving a package to core is that the installer cannot handle it otherwise the installer needs to be fixed.
The question is not that the installer can't handle it if it's not in [core]. The question is that if the installer creates a filesystem on the harddisk the appropriate tools need to be installed on the system, too. And this is only possible if those packages are in [core] because the core iso only contains the [core] repo and not [extra] and [community]. Also the netinstall iso can only install from [core] as far as I know. So if AIF supports nilfs or another filesystem, those tools have to be moved to [core].
That's why I would vote against moving it to core. I'd even say we should have a look at those packages in core with low usage and see if we should move them to extra. There are already packages for which we don't get any sign-offs which shows that those are no longer needed to be in core.
That's definitely not the definition of [core]. [core] is not for supporting the most used and most popular packages. [core] is for providing system relevant packages which are necessary to build a minimal system. And it's not the dev's task to decide how a user wants to partition and format his harddisk. If it's done like you're suggesting than you would force a user to only format his harddisk with e.g. ext4, because you think that ext4 is the one and only and most popular filesystem and every other filesystem has to be moved to [extra], because they are not necessary or not as popular as ext4. It's all about choice - the user's, not the dev's choice. Instead every filesystem - probably except for dosfsutils - has to be moved to [core] and be supported by AIF, because a filesystem is the most basic and necessary part of a system which has to be chosen, used and installed during installation. You simply can't reformat or repartition a harddisk after the installation. Well, it's possible but not without having a second harddisk onto which the installed system had first to be copied. But that's not the way a system should be installed. So every filesystem - regardless of how much it is used and how popular it is - has definitely to be moved to [core] and supported by AIF. And, no, ext2 is not the only filesystem which can be used for /boot and /. But on the other hand every filesystem related package has to be removed from (base), while AIF should then be able to recognize which filesystems are created on the harddisk and install the appropriate filesystem tools automagically.
The idea of core was to provide a minimal set of packages that are needed by nearly all users to set up a base system. Our sign-off procedure ensures that we don't put broken packages by accident there.
But filesystems - all of them - belong to the very minimal set of packages that are needed to set up a base system. But every user needs a different filesystem for a reason, because every user has different requirements. experimental != broken Just because a filesystem is marked as experimental doesn't mean that it's broken. Btrfs e.g. is missing a fsck, yet, but it shall be pretty stable until the harddisk gets too cluttered. At least it's said by many people in the web. So there are several people who like to use and to test it. As soon as there's a first stable version of a package it should of course not be updated anymore to newer, unstable versions. Of course, those experimental packages should explicitly be marked as experimental in AIF. There have been, btw., several kernel modules in the vanilla kernel which have been marked as experimental for many years even if they haven been really stable in the meantime. So the word experimental is quite relative.
I don't think that nilfs matches the criteria needed for inclusion in core. (side note: it has 1.38% usage according to pkgstats)
Why does it only have 1.38% usage? Just because it's not in [core] and not supported by AIF, just because a filesystem is usually chose at install time. And nilfs won't get as a high usage as ext4, just because it's primarily meant for using on a SSD (SSD disks, USB sticks, etc.). But to be able to install Arch Linux on a USB stick with the official install CD and to format the USB stick with nilfs it needs to be supported by AIF and to be in [core]. Heiko
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:30:03 +0100 Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
Also the netinstall iso can only install from [core] as far as I know.
not entirely correct, but that would be off-topic.
But on the other hand every filesystem related package has to be removed from (base), while AIF should then be able to recognize which filesystems are created on the harddisk and install the appropriate filesystem tools automagically.
fwiw, this is already implemented. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18495
Of course, those experimental packages should explicitly be marked as experimental in AIF.
yeah, this is how i roll.
(...) Heiko
well said! :) On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:59:58 +0100 Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
You can fool pacman by adding a extra repo to the iso image, i do this in archboot isos to fix issues with packages that are in extra.
Thanks, but I'm looking for a proper solution. Dieter
Am Dienstag 07 Dezember 2010 schrieb Dieter Plaetinck:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:30:03 +0100
Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
Also the netinstall iso can only install from [core] as far as I know.
not entirely correct, but that would be off-topic.
But on the other hand every filesystem related package has to be removed from (base), while AIF should then be able to recognize which filesystems are created on the harddisk and install the appropriate filesystem tools automagically.
fwiw, this is already implemented. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18495
Of course, those experimental packages should explicitly be marked as experimental in AIF.
yeah, this is how i roll.
(...) Heiko
well said! :)
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:59:58 +0100
Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
You can fool pacman by adding a extra repo to the iso image, i do this in archboot isos to fix issues with packages that are in extra.
Thanks, but I'm looking for a proper solution.
Dieter This is a proper solution without making core a big monster again. greetings tpowa
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:12:05 +0100 schrieb Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de>:
This is a proper solution without making core a big monster again. greetings
Adding all filesystem tools to [core] won't make it a big monster. ;-) Heiko
On Tue 07 Dec 2010 20:12 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:12:05 +0100 schrieb Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de>:
This is a proper solution without making core a big monster again. greetings
Adding all filesystem tools to [core] won't make it a big monster. ;-)
I'm not so sure about that. There are probably more filesystems than I can imagine. I wouldn't be too thrilled if all of that was in core.
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:25:06 -0500 schrieb Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
I'm not so sure about that. There are probably more filesystems than I can imagine. I wouldn't be too thrilled if all of that was in core.
I only mean Linux filesystems which can be used for installing Linux, whether they are or can be used for /boot, /, or just /home, not such optional ones like vfat (dosfstools) or ntfs. Those vfat or ntfs partitions can easily be formatted and/or mounted after the installation. Their packages indeed belong into [extra]. I'm not sure if this list is complete, but these are the ones which come to my mind: ext2 ext3 ext4 reiserfs reiser4 btrfs nilfs jfs xfs nfs So those packages are affected: e2fsprogs reiserfsprogs btrfs-progs(-unstable) nilfs-utils jfsutils xfsprogs nfs-utils Most of these packages are already in [core] anyway. And those tools are not the biggest ones. So [core] won't become a monster if they would be moved into it. But all of them should be removed from (base). Heiko
Em 08-12-2010 09:57, Heiko Baums escreveu:
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:25:06 -0500 schrieb Loui Chang<louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
So those packages are affected: e2fsprogs reiserfsprogs btrfs-progs(-unstable) nilfs-utils jfsutils xfsprogs nfs-utils
package files =============== ===== e2fsprogs already in core reiserfsprogs already in core btrfs-progs(-unstable) 124 KB 1 MB nilfs-utils 79 KB 336 KB jfsutils already in core xfsprogs already in core nfs-utils already in core Armando
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:18:20AM -0200, Armando M. Baratti wrote:
Em 08-12-2010 09:57, Heiko Baums escreveu:
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:25:06 -0500 schrieb Loui Chang<louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
So those packages are affected: e2fsprogs reiserfsprogs btrfs-progs(-unstable) nilfs-utils jfsutils xfsprogs nfs-utils
package files =============== ===== e2fsprogs already in core reiserfsprogs already in core btrfs-progs(-unstable) 124 KB 1 MB nilfs-utils 79 KB 336 KB jfsutils already in core xfsprogs already in core nfs-utils already in core
Armando
I highly doubt that this was _ever_ a question of size in the repos. More likely, It's a matter of time vs. gain for a small number of volunteers. If you're a user who knows that they want a particular exotic filesystem that isn't widely used, you the user, on this very day, have the following exciting options including but not limited to: 1) dont use AIF. not to sleight Dieter, but there's more ways to install Arch than just by using AIF. 2) format and mount the partitions yourself, convince AIF that this has been done, and continue installing as you like, with AIF. I've done this before with btrfs, as have others. 3) use Archboot, which supports a wider range of packages. Being the capable and intelligent user who clearly has sufficient reason for wanting such a thing, I'm sure you can think of other ways to accomplish your goal. d
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:56:24 -0500 Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
I highly doubt that this was _ever_ a question of size in the repos. More likely, It's a matter of time vs. gain for a small number of volunteers. If you're a user who knows that they want a particular exotic filesystem that isn't widely used, you the user, on this very day, have the following exciting options including but not limited to:
1) dont use AIF. not to sleight Dieter, but there's more ways to install Arch than just by using AIF. 2) format and mount the partitions yourself, convince AIF that this has been done, and continue installing as you like, with AIF. I've done this before with btrfs, as have others.
The topic has nothing to do with any of the above. The problem is that if you use an archiso image, it only contains the core repo, so you can't install the nilfs-utils package (or btrfs-progs) during the installation, unless you fetch it from a mirror over the network.
3) use Archboot, which supports a wider range of packages.
that seems true. But for archiso (the official media) I want to come up with a proper, solid solution. That solution can be putting the package in core or even adding the non-core package to included repo on the archiso images, but the important thing for me is that us, arch devs understand the problem, and that we have a good, agreed explanation for whatever outcome we decide. Dieter
Am Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:56:24 -0500 schrieb Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com>:
I highly doubt that this was _ever_ a question of size in the repos. More likely, It's a matter of time vs. gain for a small number of volunteers. If you're a user who knows that they want a particular exotic filesystem that isn't widely used, you the user, on this very day, have the following exciting options including but not limited to:
That may be true for packages in [extra], but not for [core]. [core] is meant for providing and being able to install a minimal base system. And a filesystem, regardless of which, is one of the most basic and necessary packages. And AIF is the official installer. It's meant for installing this base system. So, no, in this case you're wrong. As I said before, then you could just provide ext4, because you resp. the devs think that's the one and only filesystem, and everyone who needs a different filesystem for whatever reason, has to make an LFS out of Arch Linux. Well, I know it's a bit exaggerated. Heiko
Am Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:56:24 -0500 schrieb Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com>:
3) use Archboot, which supports a wider range of packages.
But Archboot has some other disadvantages. It's not as flexible as Archiso and doesn't give me as many options as Archiso, e.g. I can't change or control the cryptsetup options and I don't know with which options the LUKS container are created. And it has far too many packages in it's software selection. Heiko
Am Mittwoch 08 Dezember 2010 schrieb Heiko Baums:
Am Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:56:24 -0500
schrieb Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com>:
3) use Archboot, which supports a wider range of packages.
But Archboot has some other disadvantages. It's not as flexible as Archiso and doesn't give me as many options as Archiso, e.g. I can't change or control the cryptsetup options and I don't know with which options the LUKS container are created. And it has far too many packages in it's software selection.
Heiko Well about cryptsetup, i don't think AIF let you control much more things, you can also use any encryption you want if you use commandline, else tell me what is not working, it shouldn't be hard to implement in archboot.
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Tue 07 Dec 2010 18:30 +0100, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:26:00 +0100 schrieb Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de>:
I second this. If the reason for moving a package to core is that the installer cannot handle it otherwise the installer needs to be fixed.
The question is not that the installer can't handle it if it's not in [core]. The question is that if the installer creates a filesystem on the harddisk the appropriate tools need to be installed on the system, too. And this is only possible if those packages are in [core] because the core iso only contains the [core] repo and not [extra] and [community]. Also the netinstall iso can only install from [core] as far as I know. So if AIF supports nilfs or another filesystem, those tools have to be moved to [core].
That's why I would vote against moving it to core. I'd even say we should have a look at those packages in core with low usage and see if we should move them to extra. There are already packages for which we don't get any sign-offs which shows that those are no longer needed to be in core.
That's definitely not the definition of [core]. [core] is not for supporting the most used and most popular packages. [core] is for providing system relevant packages which are necessary to build a minimal system.
And it's not the dev's task to decide how a user wants to partition and format his harddisk.
If it's done like you're suggesting than you would force a user to only format his harddisk with e.g. ext4, because you think that ext4 is the one and only and most popular filesystem and every other filesystem has to be moved to [extra], because they are not necessary or not as popular as ext4.
It's all about choice - the user's, not the dev's choice.
Man this stuff is hard to read. Anyways, I would like to consider the installer as something separate from the core system. Sure it can help you install the core system, and any extras you may want. That shouldn't mean that the core needs to conform to what the installer enables you to do.
Instead every filesystem - probably except for dosfsutils - has to be moved to [core] and be supported by AIF, because a filesystem is the most basic and necessary part of a system which has to be chosen, used and installed during installation. You simply can't reformat or repartition a harddisk after the installation. Well, it's possible but not without having a second harddisk onto which the installed system had first to be copied. But that's not the way a system should be installed.
Bull.
So every filesystem - regardless of how much it is used and how popular it is - has definitely to be moved to [core] and supported by AIF.
And, no, ext2 is not the only filesystem which can be used for /boot and /.
But on the other hand every filesystem related package has to be removed from (base), while AIF should then be able to recognize which filesystems are created on the harddisk and install the appropriate filesystem tools automagically.
The idea of core was to provide a minimal set of packages that are needed by nearly all users to set up a base system. Our sign-off procedure ensures that we don't put broken packages by accident there.
But filesystems - all of them - belong to the very minimal set of packages that are needed to set up a base system. But every user needs a different filesystem for a reason, because every user has different requirements.
experimental != broken
Just because a filesystem is marked as experimental doesn't mean that it's broken. Btrfs e.g. is missing a fsck, yet, but it shall be pretty stable until the harddisk gets too cluttered. At least it's said by many people in the web. So there are several people who like to use and to test it.
As soon as there's a first stable version of a package it should of course not be updated anymore to newer, unstable versions.
Of course, those experimental packages should explicitly be marked as experimental in AIF.
There have been, btw., several kernel modules in the vanilla kernel which have been marked as experimental for many years even if they haven been really stable in the meantime. So the word experimental is quite relative.
I don't think that nilfs matches the criteria needed for inclusion in core. (side note: it has 1.38% usage according to pkgstats)
Why does it only have 1.38% usage? Just because it's not in [core] and not supported by AIF, just because a filesystem is usually chose at install time.
And poppycock. Ask Microsoft to support every filesystem in existence on their standard install CD and core system and maybe us poor Archers with our limited time and budget can also rise to your stratospheric expectations.
At Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2010 05:45 Loui Chang wrote:
Ask Microsoft to support every filesystem in existence on their standard install CD and core system and maybe us poor Archers with our limited time and budget can also rise to your stratospheric expectations.
Bad example because MS offers only two filesystem and a better example of a bad installer from a big company is the one from redhat (+ the forks of it) because with this you can't format all filesystems (and more worse it is that the default kernel don't support this filesystems too). The archlinux installer do in this case a very good job from my memory. At the time of installing archlinux i have had the choice of all what i want and to have the *utils from the filesystem on the cd too would be very nice. And just my 2c about the example of btrfs: Without a fsck i would never take a look at it instead of the very good reports about it be very attractice. See you, Attila
Am Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:45:50 -0500 schrieb Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com>:
Ask Microsoft to support every filesystem in existence on their standard install CD and core system and maybe us poor Archers with our limited time and budget can also rise to your stratospheric expectations.
Microsoft has only two filesystems onto which Windows can be installed, vfat and ntfs. And both of them are supported by Microsoft's install CD. Linux has a lot more filesystems. That's the difference. As I said before, I'm not talking about such optional filesystems like vfat or ntfs being included into [core], but every Linux filesystem. Heiko
participants (7)
-
Armando M. Baratti
-
Attila
-
Dave Reisner
-
Dieter Plaetinck
-
Heiko Baums
-
Loui Chang
-
Tobias Powalowski