On 29 June 2020 17:36:15 CEST, Armin Wehrfritz <dkxl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It is not acceptable that there is a range of time that people would >> literally not be able to mount their file systems because the kernel >> module would not build. >I would say that is a rather unlikely scenario to happen given how engaged the >OpenZFS developers are in maintaining Linux kernel support, and also >considering how many kernel developers there are that run Fedora. The time >delay is more with respect to OpenZFS releases rather than having patches >available that make OpenZFS work with the Linux kernel. > >> Fedora does not allow out of tree kernel modules to be packaged for >> the distribution. This has been the case since Fedora 7. >That is a strong argument. But obviously more a political rather than a >technical one. > >> That does not change the fact that OpenZFS is a very *special* out of >> tree kernel module that would put a major crimp in doing a lot of >> things Fedora does now, like testing and validating snapshots of the >> Linux kernel as it is being developed. Fedora is a place where we >> actively work with our upstreams, and we stay close to those projects >> as part of maintaining software for them. Having kzfs in Fedora would >> strain that immensely. >Well, Fedora could become the platform where OpenZFS developers work closely >with kernel developers. :) > >All that said, I very well understand the hesitations of Fedora, and upstream >kernel, developers to accommodate ZFS. I actually agree that in the current >situation with licenses being what they are, and thus ZFS being an out-of-tree >filesystem, it would not be wise to have ZFS as the default root file system >in Fedora. > >I personally have my /home filesystem on ZFS, and keep the root filesystem on >an ext4 partition, as I am confident that I can reinstall Fedora in a >reasonable amount of time, but I care about the data in my home/working >directories and value immensely ZFS features with respect to data integrity >and backups. > >Regarding the current proposal at hand, i.e. making btrfs the default >filesystem, I am actually in favour of that change. The next generation >filesystems (i.e. btrfs and ZFS) have many desirable features ([1] lists a >number of them, and that article is already quite old) and it's about time to >switch also the desktop system to these filesystem IMHO. > >Just my two cents.
For me the licensing issues are the big issues with ZFS. Or rather the licensing issue is so big for me that I haven't considered the technical merits of zfs for many years. While, if a way could be found, zfs could be an option I would be opposed to having it as default because of the licensing issues. I understand that not everyone will agree and that this discussion has gone off on a tangent. I just needed to write this for some reason. M > >-Armin > >[1] >https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/bitrot-and-atomic-cows-inside-next-gen-filesystems/ >_______________________________________________ >devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >Fedora Code of Conduct: >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >List Archives: >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
