JFS not supported as root filesystem??
I suspect that is likely to piss off a few people, just as it did me - according to bug #115227, JFS is no longer supported as root fileystem by SuSE Linux. And of course, true to the "open" nature of openSUSE, no explanation, nothing. You guys at SuSE - you're not making this particularly easy, are you? By the way, did I completely miss the official announcement about SuSE dropping JFS root support? I know JFS was dropped for _installation_ as of 9.3 - pissed me off too, but to also completely drop support for JFS as root filesystem ... /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen schrieb:
I suspect that is likely to piss off a few people, just as it did me - according to bug #115227, JFS is no longer supported as root fileystem by SuSE Linux.
And of course, true to the "open" nature of openSUSE, no explanation, nothing. You guys at SuSE - you're not making this particularly easy, are you?
You could have asked in the bug why that is the case before bitching here.
By the way, did I completely miss the official announcement about SuSE dropping JFS root support? I know JFS was dropped for _installation_ as of 9.3 - pissed me off too, but to also completely drop support for JFS as root filesystem ...
And if you had actually read the bug you reference, you would have seen that you can indeed boot from JFS, there was even a detailed description how to do it. Carl-Daniel
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Per Jessen schrieb:
I suspect that is likely to piss off a few people, just as it did me - according to bug #115227, JFS is no longer supported as root fileystem by SuSE Linux.
And of course, true to the "open" nature of openSUSE, no explanation, nothing. You guys at SuSE - you're not making this particularly easy, are you?
You could have asked in the bug why that is the case before bitching here.
And the guy who closed the report could 1) not have closed it, 2) explained _why_ there's no support for booting up a JFS filesystem, 3) referred to the SUSE spec that says so and 4) explained how people go about upgrading from a 9.x system with a JFS root file system.
By the way, did I completely miss the official announcement about SuSE dropping JFS root support? I know JFS was dropped for _installation_ as of 9.3 - pissed me off too, but to also completely drop support for JFS as root filesystem ...
And if you had actually read the bug you reference, you would have seen that you can indeed boot from JFS, there was even a detailed description how to do it.
Apart from booting up the rescue system and fixing the initrd, what else is there? (and I don't call that a fix, that's a work-around at best). Besides, I opened that report - and yes, I've read it too. /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:31, Per Jessen wrote:
And of course, true to the "open" nature of openSUSE, no explanation, nothing. You guys at SuSE - you're not making this particularly easy, are you?
Since when does open source mean "you have to do everything we tell you"? If you don't like it, submit patches to the opensuse project
By the way, did I completely miss the official announcement about SuSE dropping JFS root support? I know JFS was dropped for _installation_ as of 9.3 - pissed me off too, but to also completely drop support for JFS as root filesystem ...
Since the root file system more or less has to be created at install time, and the installation by YaST is the only thing that is supported (note the definition of supported here, it doesn't mean 'it won't work', it means 'we won't help you') it seems to be a logical consequence
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:31, Per Jessen wrote:
And of course, true to the "open" nature of openSUSE, no explanation, nothing. You guys at SuSE - you're not making this particularly easy, are you?
Since when does open source mean "you have to do everything we tell you"?
It never did, but one of the core ideas of "open" is cooperation. And that's one thing I didn't see in that report. Being told "bah, not supported." is like having a door slammed in your face. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking it's not particularly conducive to openness and cooperation.
If you don't like it, submit patches to the opensuse project
Pretty much what I did in the report - the solution is straight forward, just add "jfs" to the INITRD_MODULES settings when /etc/sysconfig/kernel is created. But the SuSE guys obviously didn't like it, and decided to fob me off with a "not supported". By the way, where should patches be submitted? Is there an official maintainer list? For instance, where would I submit a patch for fixing this initrd problem? And where do I check what the official specs are? I mean, I could go write the patch only to be told "we don't need it, coz' we don't support it". /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Per Jessen wrote:
By the way, where should patches be submitted? Is there an official maintainer list? For instance, where would I submit a patch for fixing this initrd problem? And where do I check what the official specs are? I mean, I could go write the patch only to be told "we don't need it, coz' we don't support it".
Patches should be shubmitted through Bugzilla. I don't know what you mean by "offical specs", but I guess you are referring to the source. Use the latests source rpms that are in the ftp trees as reference for your patches. Anyway, please note that we are already in RC phase, therefore a submitted patch can hardly make it into SUSE Linux 10.0. By the way, why did you start of this discussion again? Some weeks ago we already went through all this... Quoting http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2005-Aug/0702.html I should have given a more detailed answer in bugzilla. I'm very much in favor of the open development process, but unfortunately it doesn't mean infinite development resources ;) It's already quite late in the SL10 process and since JFS isn't supported by us I don't believe it is a good idea to include it in the installer. Regards Christoph
Christoph Thiel wrote:
Patches should be shubmitted through Bugzilla. I don't know what you mean by "offical specs", but I guess you are referring to the source.
I am assuming there are some official specs - otherwise how can someone say "we don't support JFS as root filesystem" and close the bugreport with that reasoning? So somewhere there must be a list of what is supported and what isn't?
By the way, why did you start of this discussion again? Some weeks ago we already went through all this...
No, this is different Christoph. My initial issue back then was lack of Installer support for creating JFS file systems - at the time I was led to believe that the installed system should be able to boot off JFS, but now when I report that it can't, I'm told it's also not supported. When I opened bug #115227, it was primarily because I'd recognised that a possible fix was a mere 4 extra characters in INITRD_MODULES. Back to patches - let's assume I go fix this problem such that the Installer properly recognises that the root filesystem is JFS and can correct INITRD_MODULES to include "jfs". Seeing as the bug report was effectively rejected with "not supported", why would my patch be accepted?? /Per Jessen, Zürich
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Per Jessen wrote:
Patches should be shubmitted through Bugzilla. I don't know what you mean by "offical specs", but I guess you are referring to the source.
I am assuming there are some official specs - otherwise how can someone say "we don't support JFS as root filesystem" and close the bugreport with that reasoning? So somewhere there must be a list of what is supported and what isn't?
Basically this spec would be the list of filesystem that you can choose from in YaST (during the installation).
By the way, why did you start of this discussion again? Some weeks ago we already went through all this...
No, this is different Christoph. My initial issue back then was lack of Installer support for creating JFS file systems - at the time I was led to believe that the installed system should be able to boot off JFS, but now when I report that it can't, I'm told it's also not supported.
Well, I thought we made it very clear in #104870, that we don't support JFS in SUSE Linux 10.0. However, as Chris Mason said, it's still in the kernel and you can use at your own risk.
When I opened bug #115227, it was primarily because I'd recognised that a possible fix was a mere 4 extra characters in INITRD_MODULES.
Sure, it's none of a problem to add jfs to INITRD_MODULES - but it is a problem to really support JFS!
Back to patches - let's assume I go fix this problem such that the Installer properly recognises that the root filesystem is JFS and can correct INITRD_MODULES to include "jfs". Seeing as the bug report was effectively rejected with "not supported", why would my patch be accepted??
In my opinion this patch could be something for future SUSE Linux OSS release, but it's very unlikely to get included in the SUSE Linux retail version, as we would have to support JFS then. Regards Christoph
Christoph Thiel wrote:
I am assuming there are some official specs - otherwise how can someone say "we don't support JFS as root filesystem" and close the bugreport with that reasoning? So somewhere there must be a list of what is supported and what isn't?
Basically this spec would be the list of filesystem that you can choose from in YaST (during the installation).
OK, that makes some sense. Who decides what goes in that list?
Sure, it's none of a problem to add jfs to INITRD_MODULES
Well, that is _all_ I asked for in 115227. Nothing more, nothing less.
- but it is a problem to really support JFS!
I'd like to understand why it's a problem to support JFS - SuSE did it right up until 9.3, and given that it works fine, why has it suddenly become a problem now?
Back to patches - let's assume I go fix this problem such that the Installer properly recognises that the root filesystem is JFS and can correct INITRD_MODULES to include "jfs". Seeing as the bug report was effectively rejected with "not supported", why would my patch be accepted??
In my opinion this patch could be something for future SUSE Linux OSS release, but it's very unlikely to get included in the SUSE Linux retail version, as we would have to support JFS then.
I have no problem with that - the Retail boxed version is obviously a SuSE product to which different rules apply. I would just like to understand if there's a risk of a perfectly good patch being ignored because "we don't support it" - after all, it would undoubtedly take me considerable effort to make such a patch. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen schrieb:
Christoph Thiel wrote:
- but it is a problem to really support JFS!
I'd like to understand why it's a problem to support JFS - SuSE did it right up until 9.3, and given that it works fine, why has it suddenly become a problem now?
No, SUSE did not _support_ it in 9.3. And you should remember your own mail about JFS problems at http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7815522&forum_id=43911 or is that a different Per Jessen? Given that JFS had problems with misdetected corruption in the recent past, we have the classical "I've been burned" problem here. Since you cannot prove such problems won't reappear, you are stuck. Regards, Carl-Daniel
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
I'd like to understand why it's a problem to support JFS - SuSE did it right up until 9.3, and given that it works fine, why has it suddenly become a problem now?
No, SUSE did not _support_ it in 9.3.
Perhaps you read what I wrote - "right up until" - meaning it wasn't not supported in 9.3. As we both know very well. Please, if you could perhaps be a little less condescending, it would be really great for communication. /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen <per@computer.org> writes:
Christoph Thiel wrote:
I am assuming there are some official specs - otherwise how can someone say "we don't support JFS as root filesystem" and close the bugreport with that reasoning? So somewhere there must be a list of what is supported and what isn't?
Basically this spec would be the list of filesystem that you can choose from in YaST (during the installation).
OK, that makes some sense. Who decides what goes in that list?
Product- and Projectmanagement of SUSE Linux decided this for 9.3 and 10.0 - I'm part of that team.
Sure, it's none of a problem to add jfs to INITRD_MODULES
Well, that is _all_ I asked for in 115227. Nothing more, nothing less.
- but it is a problem to really support JFS!
I'd like to understand why it's a problem to support JFS - SuSE did it right up until 9.3, and given that it works fine, why has it suddenly become a problem now?
We really cannot support and handle all filesystems that are available. Offering it in YaST would make them supportable. It did not work at all with 9.3 and we fighted hard for a couple of weeks before giving up - JFS is not one of the major filesystems and seems not to get much testing from others.
Back to patches - let's assume I go fix this problem such that the Installer properly recognises that the root filesystem is JFS and can correct INITRD_MODULES to include "jfs". Seeing as the bug report was effectively rejected with "not supported", why would my patch be accepted??
In my opinion this patch could be something for future SUSE Linux OSS release, but it's very unlikely to get included in the SUSE Linux retail version, as we would have to support JFS then.
I have no problem with that - the Retail boxed version is obviously a SuSE product to which different rules apply. I would just like to understand if there's a risk of a perfectly good patch being ignored because "we don't support it" - after all, it would undoubtedly take me considerable effort to make such a patch.
It's easy to patch it in, we can do this in a couple of minutes. But since we're using the same code for the Retail box and for openSUSE, we do not want to change it. The whole issue that you arise above is something we have to think about - currently there's no technical solution for this, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
We really cannot support and handle all filesystems that are available. Offering it in YaST would make them supportable. It did not work at all with 9.3 and we fighted hard for a couple of weeks before giving up - JFS is not one of the major filesystems and seems not to get much testing from others.
let me say (I read this thread now for a moment) that there are two different problems: * will it be possible to keep using a 9.2 JFS system with newer SUSE distro? * why is not the jfs file system supported. I can't answer the first thing, but clearly the second one must have an explanantion - you just give a very convincing one (citation) - should be on opensuse. jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
jdd schrieb:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
We really cannot support and handle all filesystems that are available. Offering it in YaST would make them supportable. It did not work at all with 9.3 and we fighted hard for a couple of weeks before giving up - JFS is not one of the major filesystems and seems not to get much testing from others.
let me say (I read this thread now for a moment) that there are two different problems:
* will it be possible to keep using a 9.2 JFS system with newer SUSE distro?
Should be possible (provided it has been fixed upstream), but it will not be easy and since nobody has tested it, you may still lose your data.
* why is not the jfs file system supported.
Due to bugs. See for example http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7815522&forum_id=43911 Regards Carl-Daniel
jdd wrote:
let me say (I read this thread now for a moment) that there are two different problems:
* will it be possible to keep using a 9.2 JFS system with newer SUSE distro?
Not without fixing the initrd created by 10.0. Once you do that, it works perfectly fine. (and it's just a question of editing /etc/sysconfig/kernel and running mkinitrd). So the answer is - definitely possible, but not supported ...
* why is not the jfs file system supported.
JFS caused a problem in 9.3, or rather the earlykdm init-script of 9.3 unearthed some problems in JFS. They were fixed quite early - back in March I believe - but didn't make it in time for the 9.3 deadline. Perfectly reasonable.
I can't answer the first thing, but clearly the second one must have an explanantion - you just give a very convincing one (citation) - should be on opensuse.
What happened in 9.3 is all over and done with, but I fail to understand what was so difficult about re-instating JFS functionality and support in 10.0 now that the problems have long been fixed. After all, I'm sure Novell didn't just sack all the people who understood JFS :-) /Per Jessen, Zürich
Per Jessen <per@computer.org> writes:
After all, I'm sure Novell didn't just sack all the people who understood JFS :-)
That's one of the problems: We do not have enough people that understand JFS (and never had), Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
It's easy to patch it in, we can do this in a couple of minutes. But since we're using the same code for the Retail box and for openSUSE, we do not want to change it.
The whole issue that you arise above is something we have to think about - currently there's no technical solution for this,
Hi Andreas. Many thanks for your response. So we've hit the crux of the problem - which seems pretty critical. Although openSUSE is an "open" project, what goes and what doesn't is still decided by the commercial needs requirements of Novell/SuSE. In many ways also reasonably understandable, but it does beg the question - how open is OpenSUSE really?
From www.opensuse.org/How_to_participate :
"The easiest way to participate in the development of SUSE Linux is to post a patch as a suggested solution to an existing bug in Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.novell.com). Each package has a maintainer, who will contact you to discuss your proposed solution. " I can't help it - perhaps the paragraph above should be slightly amended then: "Note - patches and proposals are only accepted provided they coincide with SuSEs commercial plans and requirements." Per
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Per Jessen wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
It's easy to patch it in, we can do this in a couple of minutes. But since we're using the same code for the Retail box and for openSUSE, we do not want to change it. The whole issue that you arise above is something we have to think about - currently there's no technical solution for this, Many thanks for your response. So we've hit the crux of the problem - which seems pretty critical. Although openSUSE is an "open" project, what goes and what doesn't is still decided by the commercial needs requirements of Novell/SuSE. In many ways also reasonably understandable, but it does beg the question - how open is OpenSUSE really?
Per.. so much bashing, so much negative energy ;) Note that I'm not working for Novell/SUSE and I just express my opinion as an openSUSE community member, just like you (so this is no PR talk). It was quite clearly stated from the beginning that 10.0 was an intermediate release, with all of the "openness" of [open]SUSE not being effective just _yet_. At least it's the kind of information that was available on this mailing-list, AFAICR. If I got it elsewhere and you didn't, well, now you know ;) AFAIK, the collaboration between SUSE and the community is planned to be thouroughly discussed and turned into reality with the beginning of 10.1 development. You're 100% right in stating that that aspect is "critical", it definately is, but just be a little more patient and actively contribute to the discussion about that when we'll start doing so. As it doesn't make any sense to talk about that extensively without having the opinion of Novell/SUSE employees, packagers and SUSE Linux project managers, it seems more realistic to me to wait until 10.0 final has been released and when they'll supposedly have more time to spend on that. I can imagine the hard work and pressure they're already feeling at the moment.
From www.opensuse.org/How_to_participate : "The easiest way to participate in the development of SUSE Linux is to post a patch as a suggested solution to an existing bug in Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.novell.com). Each package has a maintainer, who will contact you to discuss your proposed solution. " I can't help it - perhaps the paragraph above should be slightly amended then: "Note - patches and proposals are only accepted provided they coincide with SuSEs commercial plans and requirements."
bash bash bash... please come down a little, being so overly fast in your statements without discussing just doesn't prove helpful to anyone.. It isn't different with other distributions that have a similar model, say, Fedora or Debian (and don't tell me Debian is not open). There is *always* a package maintainer, and she's responsible for providing good quality, not letting "anything" in. That's not going to change, at least let's hope not ;) I don't see the package maintaince been given out of hands by the SUSE developers /for packages that make it into the boxed set and SLES/. This is understandable, and one might argue this is not "open enough"... well, on the other hand you've got many people that are paid fulltime for being package maintainers, something you don't necessarely have with other distributions. Honestly, if the SUSE devs and package maintainers will prove to be as flexible, open to ideas and contributions as well as reactive as up to now, I really prefer that situation in order for them to provide the rock solid core distribution SUSE always has been delivering. At least I prefer that to having people working on that during their free time. How and whether packages that are not supported by SUSE ("supported" as in "installation support", not evening mentioning support contracts with SLES, let's just leave that out of the way) will be integrated into - - the ISOs on the internet - - the boxed sets - - centralized, coordinated, additional package repositories (*) is not defined nor discussed at the moment, and I think it's also up to us to make proposals. (*) anyhow, this is more or less actively being discussed at the moment and is also a very "critical" aspect of openSUSE as well as being directly related to your concerns I believe we're going to discuss all of this a lot for 10.1. openSUSE is really work in progress, and we're going to get the gradually. Please correct me if I'm wrong. cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser@skynet.be> <guru@unixtech.be> _\_v ===> FOSDEM 2006 -- February 2006 in Brussels <=== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDIZHlr3NMWliFcXcRAsjsAKCWYyExvjuxyxY8BquTmF6IdrhRRACeM1GD 3NKROv062VsVdAACNvTPlbg= =iZgB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Pascal Bleser wrote:
Per.. so much bashing, so much negative energy ;)
OK, point taken. I'm actually trying to restrain myself, but I just don't seem to have gotten many good understandable answers. What I've written should most definitely _not_ be seen as negative, but just as criticism. Hopefully even a little constructive.
It was quite clearly stated from the beginning that 10.0 was an intermediate release, with all of the "openness" of [open]SUSE not being effective just _yet_.
I wasn't aware of that, but I can fully accept it. I don't mind being told to sit down for now, it's the lack of reasoning I'm having a problem with.
bash bash bash... please come down a little, being so overly fast in your statements without discussing just doesn't prove helpful to anyone..
I did say "I can't help it" - obviously my humour doesn't work everywhere :-(
There is *always* a package maintainer, and she's responsible for providing good quality, not letting "anything" in. That's not going to change, at least let's hope not ;)
Oh no, I absolutely agree. I was just disagreeing with the idea of not letting something "in" only because "we don't want to support it".
I don't see the package maintaince been given out of hands by the SUSE developers /for packages that make it into the boxed set and SLES/. This is understandable, and one might argue this is not "open enough"...
For the retail set and SLES, entirely reasonable. For openSUSE, not quite. In my opinion anyway. /Per Jessen, Zürich
(What happened to the good old 72 char line length for email, btw?) On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 03:13:11PM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Many thanks for your response. So we've hit the crux of the problem - which seems pretty critical. Although openSUSE is an "open" project, what goes and what doesn't is still decided by the commercial needs requirements of Novell/SuSE.
You are right that the documentation and much of our communication needs fixing in this regard, but let me add why I think your base assumption is wrong ;-) The openSUSE project is not about you (the community) deciding what goes into SUSE Linux core and what not. It stays the base for all the other Linux products, and as you observed correctly, we can only accept patches that happen to move the distribution in the direction where we want to have it for our products. This doesn't work well together with the claim to be an open community project? Not quite, no. That's where the idea came from not to open up the distribution for everyone to add their pet patches to, but to allow for customizations that need not be added to the core in order to be useful. One solution for problems like your JFS woes is to allow you to patch a few packages and build your own distribution (install tree, iso images) with them, and to make sure that the process is as easy as possible (for a technical person at least). We might not want to take your patches, but we help you to create and use and maintain them and point others to your packages. And no, nothing of it exists yet, and believe us that we aren't to happy with that either. But this is the direction where the project can (and hopefully will) go to allow both: the core distribution which we continue to control, work on, test and improve on the one hand, and on the other a playground for experimenting, and a high-quality core distribution people can hack on and customize at their leisure. Sounds awfully vague at this point in time, I know. Sonja -- Sonja Krause-Harder (skh@suse.de) Research & Development SUSE Linux Products GmbH
Per, On Friday 09 September 2005 06:13, Per Jessen wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
It's easy to patch it in, we can do this in a couple of minutes. But since we're using the same code for the Retail box and for openSUSE, we do not want to change it.
The whole issue that you arise above is something we have to think about - currently there's no technical solution for this,
Hi Andreas.
Many thanks for your response. So we've hit the crux of the problem - which seems pretty critical. Although openSUSE is an "open" project, what goes and what doesn't is still decided by the commercial needs requirements of Novell/SuSE.
God, I hope so. When an open project becomes a free-for-all, it's already dead. I'm not at all familiar with the Fedora project, but I've heard intimations that its openness was not entirely to the benefit of the resulting distribution and when this project started up there was some concern that it would suffer a similar fate. Presumably Novell is learning from the mistakes that were made in that earlier attempt at something similar.
In many ways also reasonably understandable, but it does beg the question - how open is OpenSUSE really?
I think the question is what you think "open" means in this context. Novell owns the SuSE trademark and the distribution. It's up to them to run the project as they see fit.
From www.opensuse.org/How_to_participate :
"The easiest way to participate in the development of SUSE Linux is to post a patch as a suggested solution to an existing bug in Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.novell.com). Each package has a maintainer, who will contact you to discuss your proposed solution. "
I can't help it - perhaps the paragraph above should be slightly amended then:
"Note - patches and proposals are only accepted provided they coincide with SuSEs commercial plans and requirements."
Why does that need to be said? Why would it be otherwise? Novell is a publicly traded corporation headquartered in the United States. The primary duty of those running such companies is to their shareholders--specifically to maximize the return on their investment. Regardless of whether you or I like that arrangement, it's the law here.
Per
Randall Schulz
Randall R Schulz wrote:
I think the question is what you think "open" means in this context. Novell owns the SuSE trademark and the distribution. It's up to them to run the project as they see fit.
yes and no. The way they will drive the project will have a great impact on the community involvement. I have no need to make Novell own more bucks... making money honestly is not a problem, but it's not my problem. I will (and many others will) cooperate with Novell if and only if the work I do makes sense for the whole community, not only for Novell. I think Novell must give the community a great importance in the decision. Sure, there must be a final decision, and it's to be Novell's. But there should be any kind of vote system and when Novell decides not to follow the vote result, this should be largely explained. this don't mean anybody can do anything, but that an advice must be done by Novells corps _and_ the community and usually followed. What mean also to find what is "the community"? just this is not straightforward :-) jdd -- pour m'écrire, aller sur: http://www.dodin.net http://valerie.dodin.net http://arvamip.free.fr
Per Jessen <per@computer.org> writes:
Hi Andreas.
Many thanks for your response. So we've hit the crux of the problem - which seems pretty critical. Although openSUSE is an "open" project, what goes and what doesn't is still decided by the commercial needs requirements of Novell/SuSE. In many ways also reasonably understandable, but it does
Per, let me answer just this for now - and let's continue the whole discussion later on. I'm currently trying to get 10.0 out and yours and Pascal's emails deserver a more detailed response than I just do now.
beg the question - how open is OpenSUSE really?
From www.opensuse.org/How_to_participate :
"The easiest way to participate in the development of SUSE Linux is to post a patch as a suggested solution to an existing bug in Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.novell.com). Each package has a maintainer, who will contact you to discuss your proposed solution. "
We speak about discussion. And that means that you have to accept a no. One of the head kernel maintainers of our kernel package said that they cannot really support JFS as a kernel filesystem and therefore closed your report. It's not enough to have a patch but we also have to think about the futre - it's taking care of security issues, testing and fixing of problems. All these considerations - together with the needs of the larger part of our users [1] - are taken into account. Please be also aware that the current state of openSUSE is still in a very early state, we have some further ideas and if - like Andreas G. does SUPER - somebody does a JFS distro and this is used by enough users: Fine with me. I'd like to give you the chance to make changes as you propose yourself and use them yourself, distribute them, test them - without us at Novell interfering at all. And if the outcome of that is something the openSUSE community likes to see in our SUSE Linux distribution, then this is something that I will accept and try to change our commercial plans as suggested by our users, Andreas Footnotes: [1] So far, I only hear you asking loud for JFS. You're definitely not alone but this is not a demand from a large group. -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Per, let me answer just this for now - and let's continue the whole discussion later on. I'm currently trying to get 10.0 out and yours and Pascal's emails deserver a more detailed response than I just do now.
OK, understood and accepted.
We speak about discussion. And that means that you have to accept a no.
Also accepted. In this particular case I just had a problem with the complete lack of reasoning. Not much discussion, IMHO.
One of the head kernel maintainers of our kernel package said that they cannot really support JFS as a kernel filesystem and therefore closed your report.
Maybe I'm just asking too much, but I still think an explanation would be the least to expect in an open project. Anyway, this is the last bit from me for the moment. I look forward to a continued discussion when the time is ripe. /Per Jessen, Zürich
participants (9)
-
Anders Johansson -
Andreas Jaeger -
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Christoph Thiel -
jdd -
Pascal Bleser -
Per Jessen -
Randall R Schulz -
Sonja Krause-Harder