Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #84970 > unrolled thread

upstream reiserfs support for trixie? [was Re: btrfs-progs: reiserfs support optional?]

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  upstream reiserfs support for trixie?  [was Re: btrfs-progs:  reiserfs support optional?] Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2024-12-29 06:20 +0100
    Re: upstream reiserfs support for trixie?  [was Re: btrfs-progs:  reiserfs support optional?] Felix Zielcke <fzielcke@z-51.de> - 2025-01-19 19:10 +0100

#84970 — upstream reiserfs support for trixie? [was Re: btrfs-progs: reiserfs support optional?]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Control: tag -1 trixie

Dear Kernel team, I've CCed you because I'm hoping you know what
upstream support for reiserfs will look like during trixie's life-cycle.

Hi Felix,

Felix Zielcke <fzielcke@z-51.de> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:17:04 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org>
> wrote:
>> It looks like reiserfs will not be part of trixie
>> (Debian 13).
>
> Hi all,
>
> ReiserFS support in Linux has been now removed upstream [0]
> So 6.13 won't ship with it.
> Though I don't know which kernel ends up in trixie.

Last I checked 6.12 is next LTS kernel branch, and it's the one that
ptrixie will track.

> This should be discussed now, if we still want btrfs-convert to work
> with it.
>
> I don't mind shipping just libreiserfs without mkfs.

Is btrfs-convert really the best way for anyone to migrate to btrfs?
From what I can tell the answer to this is still firmly "no", so I'm
actually in favour of dropping it completely.

Are there any other consumers of libreiserfs?

> ReiserFS isn't year 2038 safe so new filesystems shouldn't be created
> anymore.

Agreed.  My primary concern is that there will be little no upstream
reiserfs support during the latter stages of trixie's life-cycle.  Why
wouldn't it be best to let bookworm be last release with a libreiserfs
and -progs?  The kernel in trixie seems like it may continue to support
reiserfs, so users could still mount, backup, reformat, restore.

Regards,
Nicholas

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#85213

Am Samstag, dem 28.12.2024 um 22:09 -0700 schrieb Nicholas D Steeves:
> Control: tag -1 trixie
> 
> Dear Kernel team, I've CCed you because I'm hoping you know what
> upstream support for reiserfs will look like during trixie's life-
> cycle.
> 
> Hi Felix,
> 
Hi Nicholas,

I can't find a response from Kernel Team.
But it looks like trixie will ship with 6.12. It's LTS and is the last
Kernel with ReiserFS support.
So I guess it's still possible to mount a reiserfs during trixie's
life-cycle.

> Felix Zielcke <fzielcke@z-51.de> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:17:04 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves
> > <sten@debian.org>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> 
> > This should be discussed now, if we still want btrfs-convert to
> > work
> > with it.
> > 
> > I don't mind shipping just libreiserfs without mkfs.
> 
> Is btrfs-convert really the best way for anyone to migrate to btrfs?
> From what I can tell the answer to this is still firmly "no", so I'm
> actually in favour of dropping it completely.
> 
> Are there any other consumers of libreiserfs?
> 
reiserfsprogs and btrfs-convert are the only ones.
If it would have been my decision, I wouldn't have added btrfs-convert
support in the first place.
So from my POV I totally agree to remove it.

> > ReiserFS isn't year 2038 safe so new filesystems shouldn't be
> > created
> > anymore.
> 
> Agreed.  My primary concern is that there will be little no upstream
> reiserfs support during the latter stages of trixie's life-cycle. 
> Why
> wouldn't it be best to let bookworm be last release with a
> libreiserfs
> and -progs?  The kernel in trixie seems like it may continue to
> support
> reiserfs, so users could still mount, backup, reformat, restore.
> 

I'm a bit unsure if we should at least ship with reiserfsck. But if
people still use it >= 2038 then it would do more damage then fixing
your fs.
But I'm totally open to completely RM it.

Regards,
Felix

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web