#include <hallo.h> Craig Dickson wrote on Tue Sep 25, 2001 um 12:45:59PM:
> It's easy if you're used to building your own kernels and applying > patches to sources, but I'm sure there are a lot of less-technical users > who would prefer to use the standard kernel-image packages. If these > packages don't have ext3, those users are effectively out of luck. Okay, but as long Ext3 is a kinde experimental, it will remain in a separated kernel-image package. "apt-get install kernel-image.*ext3" shouldn't be too complicated for users, IMHO. > filesystems at installation time, which you can't do if the kernel image > on the installation CD doesn't support ext3. Sure, you can convert ext2 When Woody comes, there will probably be a different flavour on each CD-ROM. So you have 5 CDs and depending on which you insert, you will get one of [ default | ide | ide-pci | reiserfs | udma100-ext3 ] installation systems. > really would be nice not to have to go through that extra step. New users > shouldn't have to think of ext3 as something that requires extra work on > their part. People that don't like any extra work should not touch the config of a running system. Changing to another FS needs always some extra work, at least the journal creation (10 seconds) in the case of Ext3. > packages, and it's great that we have them. I don't use them myself only > because I don't use Debian-packaged kernel sources; I use Linus' > official releases together with the ext3 patches created by the ext3 > developers. Please learn about what a patch-package is. You don't need Debian-packaged kernel sources to use the patch-packages. A patch package contains the same patch file with some nifty scripts for make-kpkg, but does not require it. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- "Millionen von Fliegen, die um den Dreck schwirren, können sich nicht irren" (Auswertung der Win-95 Verkaufszahlen, in Chip 8/96)