On 13/01/2025 at 07:48, Holger Wansing wrote:
Am 12. Januar 2025 23:44:27 MEZ schrieb Pascal Hambourg
<pas...@plouf.fr.eu.org>:
Indeed we must make a trade-off
between robustness (ext4 vs ext2), convenience (/boot in root filesystem
vs small separate /boot) and compatibility with boot loaders. And I
believe we can do it right at least for use cases we know about. You
addressed the case of guided partitioning without LVM on ppc64el, why
not do the same for guided partitioning without LVM ? Do you think that
the robustness or convenience gain of not having a separate ext2 /boot
partition is worth the loss of compatibility with Petitboot ?
I cannot judge on this, because it depends on, how much Petitboot
is used on that arch.
If it's only some few percent, you would force much other people to
a ext2 /boot without a reason.
I agree. Petitboot is mentioned on IBM's website [1] so I suspect it is
rather standard on IBM POWER machines.
[1]
<https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/linux-on-systems?topic=systems-petitboot-bootloader>
And the same for arm64, if we roll back to ext2 there too.
AFAIK the only implementation of Petitboot on arm64 (Odroid) supports
ext4 so there is no need to rollback to ext2. I did not mean to roll
back to ext2 but to create a separate /boot partition only with LVM, as
I do not see the benefit of a separate ext4 /boot partition without LVM.
I had hoped that the OP would give some statistics about this...
So do I...
