| 1 |
>> Extended attributes can be turned off during compile time for each |
| 2 |
>> filesystem you mentioned. |
| 3 |
> If you turn off features you need, things break. There's nothing new |
| 4 |
> about that. If you disable ext3 support in your kernel, you can't mount |
| 5 |
> an ext3 partition and you'll get an error during boot about not finding |
| 6 |
> the root. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
What you're proposing, though, is *requiring* a feature most people |
| 9 |
don't even know about or use. Yes, if I want to boot from ext3, I'll |
| 10 |
need support for it in the kernel. That's a very fundamental |
| 11 |
assumption and one that even our most "challenged" users will |
| 12 |
understand. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Requiring extended attributes for the Portage tree is something |
| 15 |
completely different. There's simply no need to require additional |
| 16 |
features for something that can be done in the filename. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Is there any *technical* reason you object to the GLEP? Because your |
| 19 |
aesthetic sense may be commendable but I for one find the suggestion |
| 20 |
*beautifully* simple. :-) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Of course, taste can't be argued about (obviously I have an excellent |
| 23 |
taste and you don't! ;-) ) so I'd be really curious if there are |
| 24 |
technical reasons. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
>> It wouldn't be great to require extended attributes for each and every |
| 27 |
>> Gentoo box... |
| 28 |
> Why not? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Because we shouldn't require stuff we don't *have* to. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives