On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:14:06AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/24/13 4:09 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> > On 01/24/2013 08:42 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 1/24/13 11:57 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> >>> On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:39:29 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>>>> instead of renaming& keeping the btrfsctl.c copy
> >>>>
> >>>> There is a new momentum to improve the Btrfs-progs quality :)
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, one step is to get rid of the legacy tools and sources. It
> >>>> wastes time to maintain them and these old tools cause confusion.
> >>>> btrfsctl.c, btrfs-vol.c and btrfs-show.c are not needed anymore.
> >>>> Please correct me if there are plans to use these old tools in
> >>>> future Linux distributions. The "btrfs" tool replaces the legacy
> >>>> "btrfsctl", "btrfs-vol" and "btrfs-show" tools. Below, the usage
> >>>> text of the old tools is quoted. All these tasks are also offered
> >>>> in the "btrfs" tool, and this tool is the newer one.
> >>>
> >>> I fully agree: btrfsctl, btrfs-vol, btrfs-show are perfectly
> >>> replaced by by btrfs. Moreover time to time the patches are more
> >>> complex than the needing because exists these "legacy" programs.
> >>>
> >>> I checked the debian package, and to me seems that there is no need
> >>> of {btrfsctl,btrfs-vol,btrfs-show}
> >>
> >> Hm, they are shipped in the Fedora package.
> >
> > The same is true for the debian package, but are these used in Fedora ?
> >
> >>
> >> For backwards compat, could those be turned into shell scripts which
> >> invoke the btrfs tool?
> >
> > I don't see any gain to maintains a script bash (which has to be
> > written from scratch) instead of maintains the current C code.
>
> It should be a trivial bash script to convert the calls, and it should
> require very little maintenance. Much less than the hundreds of lines
> of duplicated C code, I think.
>
> If nobody needs them, though, no reason for even a bash script.
>
> David, Suse may be using them now, but probably can adapt?
> Anaconda said it could drop the use of btrfsctl. :)I've just asked someone I know at Canonical, and he says there's no use of these tools in the Ubuntu installer. (Disclaimer: it's not entirely his area, and there's probably other places to look, like udev rules, but on a cursory glance, it should be OK). I've also checked with the Debian installer people, and they're not using the deprecated tools either. Further, these searches: http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=btrfs-show http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=btrfs-vol http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=btrfsctl suggest that there's very little impact over the rest of the system as well. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- If it ain't broke, hit it again. ---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
