Am Mittwoch, den 29.11.2017, 17:13 +0100 schrieb Hilko Bengen: > To back up my claim: Default installations of SuSE Enterprise Linux > (or > whatever it is called these days) are based upon BTRFS.
Oops - I thought I'm using the Debian Bug Tracker 😉 > >     I'm not sure I follow: Do you mean that some sort of policy > >     forbids/prevents installation of anything btrfs-related? > > > > **YES** > > I'm maintaining an mid-size installation. For these systems > > 'btrfs-tools' is explicitly removed: > > - not used, because I rely on ext4 and mdraid > > - limiting the installed packages is improving the security > > (reducing > >  surface) > > - it has had introduced a boot delay (at this time trusty was used, > >  not retested actually). > > If you really wish to reduce the attack surface imposed by a > filesystem > implementation, you'll want to get rid of the kernel component, i.e. > you'll ship custom kernels or use module blacklisting. This means > that > you are already working with distribution tools and I suggest using > equivs or similar to provide a dummy btrfs-progs package. You are right - there are a lot of different solutions for different problems ☺ The justification for the exclusion of btrfs-tools in our organisation was just provided to give you some ideas about why somebody can't deploy btrfs-tools. For my installations I resolved the conflict already by adding an 'Provides:' clause to an organisational meta package. The intention to report it here was to avoid this troubles for other users and improve the package quality. Best Regards, H.-Dirk Schmitt --      Signature H.-Dirk Schmitt      H.-Dirk Schmitt    Dipl.Math.  eMail:dirk.schm...@computer42.org    mobile:+49 177 616 8564    phone: +49 2642 99 41 14    fax: +49 2642 99 41 15    Schillerstr. 42, D-53489 Sinzig  pgp: http://www.computer42.org/~dirk/OpenPGP-fingerprint.html
