| 1 |
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:02 +0000, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/10/05, R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The grub maintainer's stance was that reiser 4 support would not be |
| 4 |
> > included in grub until it was included in gentoo-sources, not any kernel |
| 5 |
> > in portage. The grub maintainer has been AWOL for the last 9 months or |
| 6 |
> > so however, so i guess it's now up to the base-system herd. I was under |
| 7 |
> > the impression that feature-adding patches should be sent upstream. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I still think it's retarded to have a reiser 4 boot partition, but |
| 10 |
> > whatever stirs your pot. ;P |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It makes sense if you're actually using reiser4 for everything else. |
| 13 |
> Why bloat your kernel with an extra FS just for /boot? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The space added to a kernel for ext2 is *much* less than the overhead of |
| 16 |
using a journaling file system for /boot. You're wasting exponentially |
| 17 |
more space using reiser on /boot. The same would be true if you were |
| 18 |
using ext3, which is why you always see us suggesting using ext2 for |
| 19 |
boot. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 23 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 24 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 25 |
Games - Developer |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives