On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.com.au> wrote: > > > These are the btrfs-tools versions on Debian: > > squeeze: > kernel: 2.6.32 > tools: 0.19+20100601-3 > > squeeze-backports: > kernel: 2.6.39 > tools: nothing (so user ends up with 0.19+20100601-3) > > wheezy/testing/sid: > kernel: 3.1.6-1 > tools: 0.19+20111105-2 > > Using the 2.6.39 kernel from squeeze-backports, do I need a newer > btrfs-tools and is there a particular reason it is not in > squeeze-backports too? > > Or should I not be trying to use the versions in squeeze at all - should > I be on testing/wheezy or unstable? > > The Debian btrfs wiki and the regular btrfs wiki don't really suggest a > good starting point (other than suggesting the btrfs has been in Debian > since squeeze) > http://wiki.debian.org/Btrfs > > If I try to use the version from testing or unstable, I get this error > on a squeeze setup: > > btrfs-tools depends on e2fslibs (>= 1.41.99); however: > Version of e2fslibs on system is 1.41.12-4stable1.
0.19+20111105-2 should be sufficiently up to date for most day-to-day purposes; the particular dependency you're running up against is probably a quirk of the packaging. Note that you really want to be running the latest kernel possible if using btrfs; since 2.6.39 there have been several major performance fixes, stability fixes, crash-corruption fixes, which users did hit on a somewhat regular basis. Btrfs is not yet stable for the typical user who just wants things to work, even when things don't. I don't know of any major distros that offer support services for btrfs filesystems, for instance. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
