On 10/19/19 4:43 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> I don't have much to say about most of this, but noticed this bit:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:48:42PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
>> The same implementation could (and if I have my way, will) be used to
>> provide a features=grub mask. This would be
I don't have much to say about most of this, but noticed this bit:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:48:42PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> The same implementation could (and if I have my way, will) be used to
> provide a features=grub mask. This would be used for the boot pool
> (bpool) to limit it to
TL;DR: I think the installer should default to all features, so I think
the current behavior is correct. I would support the installer gaining
an option to default to a subset of features (e.g. using the future
features=portable mechanism) to make the pool more portable. If the
desktop GUI
It seems the ZFS-on-Linux team has taken the initiative and added a few
pool features, that, when enabled, break write support on the other
implementation of ZFS that I'm aware of, and, are enabled by default upon
pool creation or upgrade unless explicitly disabled or the -n flag is
specified.
