FWIW, I see that f2fs-tools is in fedora, but it's a bit old, at v1.2.0
while upstream is at 1.4.0.
(http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-tools.git)
If you're agitating for movement in the kernel, might want to give the
userspace pkg maintainer ( echevemaster ) a heads
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com
wrote:
UDF has been in the best position to do this for ~ 20 years, seeing as
it has had Windows, OS X, and linux distro support for most of that
time frame. And yet it didn't supplant FAT or NTFS on flash media on
any
On 2014-12-22, 17:20 GMT, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
It isn't about a single module... you're a smart guy... you
know better.
I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask
somebody else to work for you on your pet project.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote:
On 2014-12-22, 17:20 GMT, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
It isn't about a single module... you're a smart guy... you
know better.
I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask
somebody else to work for you on your pet
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote:
I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask
somebody else to work for you on your pet project.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it. I don't
On 2014-12-24, 11:10 GMT, drago01 wrote:
I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask
somebody else to work for you on your pet project.
He already apologized ... no need to dig out the old mails ... let the
thread die.
Yes, my point was mainly to post the URL of building
Am 24.12.2014 um 21:20 schrieb Matěj Cepl:
On 2014-12-24, 11:10 GMT, drago01 wrote:
I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask
somebody else to work for you on your pet project.
He already apologized ... no need to dig out the old mails ... let the
thread die.
Yes, my
On 2014-12-24, 20:59 GMT, Reindl Harald wrote:
then why did you write the angry *PLONK?
PLONK is not angry. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/plonk.html
defines it in this way:
plonk: excl.,vt.
[Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang ‘plonk’ for
cheap booze, or ‘plonker’
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
From what I read it has the possibility of getting rid of FAT / NTFS on
flash devices;
which would be a good thing - and I thought that would be something the
Fedora community
would be interested with participating.
UDF has
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought
I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route.
Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it
isn't included.
Incredulous yes, angry no. I came here instead of bugzilla because I
thought the issue
needed a wider audience - especially since it's made its way into the linux
media.
IMO the decision to exclude F2FS was a mistake. The arguments stated as to
why it wasn't included
don't really stand up to
On 12/22/14 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I thought
I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route.
Based upon the information I discovered tonight it
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
Please don't top post.
Incredulous yes, angry no. I came here instead of bugzilla because I
thought the issue
needed a wider audience - especially since it's made its way into the linux
media.
IMO the decision to exclude
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Really? It's very disappointing that a single module that isn't used
for anything in Fedora itself is disabled? I understand the desire to
want to tinker, but to be very disappointed in this is... well it's
odd.
Trying to turn this discussion into something more productive and
deliberately ignoring the negativity:
What is the present position/plan for f2fs in Fedora?
Is there any hardware out there that uses it?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Really? It's very disappointing that a single module that isn't used
for anything in Fedora itself is disabled? I understand the desire to
want
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Naheem Zaffar naheemzaf...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to turn this discussion into something more productive and
deliberately ignoring the negativity:
:)
What is the present position/plan for f2fs in Fedora?
We'll likely enable it after looking at it a bit
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Is there any hardware out there that uses it?
Aside from the hardware already mentioned in this thread, which Fedora
doesn't run on, there might be some generic ARM boards that could use
it.
One use that quickly
On 12/22/14 12:12 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
mailto:jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Is there any hardware out there that uses it?
Aside from the hardware already mentioned in this thread, which Fedora
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Ah. I see. To you this is just a single instance of some wider
problem. Sure, OK. I'm not comfortable flipping on random
filesystems as soon as they show up. Similarly, I don't think it's
helpful to enable
Hi
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Well, I don't think the majority of folks would agree that F2FS is some
random filesystem.
You'll either turn it on, or explain why not. The community can then
judge for themselves.
That is not how it works. The default position
The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in
this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up.
The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we
look. The requirement is obvious. The bugzilla on it
is active. They'll either turn it on, or
Hi
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative...
in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up.
The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we
look. The requirement is obvious.
What exactly more do you propose? Re-create the wheel? Tests have already
been run. A URL has already been posted in the bugzilla record showing a
video where Dave Chinner discusses it. It's being used in consumer devices
now. There is nothing to convince. The facts speak for themselves.
On 22 December 2014 at 12:19, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
What exactly more do you propose? Re-create the wheel? Tests have
already been run. A URL has already been posted in the bugzilla record
showing a
video where Dave Chinner discusses it. It's being used in consumer
devices
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com
wrote:
No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that
some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a
custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work,
Am 22.12.2014 um 20:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is
that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device
using a custom kernel. How does it work
Hi
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also
making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included
in Fedora;
It applies to filesystems enabled in Fedora. Someone has to do the
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
*wow* and i am accused to be abusive repeatly?
LOL... Yeah, it's kind of hard to gauge when to just shut-up in this group.
I don't believe that I said anything abusive, and that was not my intent.
If I hurt someones
On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 11:57 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen
smo...@gmail.com wrote:
No they do not have all the information needed. What they know
is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in
a
Please accept my apologies. My initial post was sufficient to make my
point.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 11:57 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen
smo...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote:
Please accept my apologies. My initial post was sufficient to make my
point.
Your post had sufficient information for us to reevaluate F2FS, yes.
Thanks for that.
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Your post had sufficient information for us to reevaluate F2FS, yes.
Thanks for that.
You're very welcome. Glad I could help. Thanks for keeping an open mind
and taking the time
to reevaluate. It is much
On 12/21/2014 07:48 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
I was wanting to play around with F2FS about 6 months ago, found it
wasn't yet included in the F20 kernel (even though Fedora packages
f2fs-tools?). I did a quick search and found some comments basically
saying it was under heavy development, stay
Yes, I looked at that bug report and the somewhat terse response. I
thought I'd post here first before I went the bugzilla route.
Based upon the information I discovered tonight it seems a bit puzzling it
isn't included. Seriously, Ubuntu includes it and we don't?
Google is using it for the
35 matches
Mail list logo
