10:08 a.m.
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 01:03, Hans Reiser <reiser(a)namesys.com> wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
>Hans, there is a bug reported against Reiser3 which has been closed as
> WONTFIX as it's a ReiserFS kernel issue and ReiserFS is unsupported. Are
> you interested in fixing this?
>
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=159123
Yes, Edward, can you look into this?
So xattr is now a supported feature in Reiser3?
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
3:27 p.m.
New subject: <4> post_create: setxatter failed
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 01:03, Hans Reiser
<reiser(a)namesys.com> wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> >Hans, there is a bug reported against Reiser3 which has been closed as
> > WONTFIX as it's a ReiserFS kernel issue and ReiserFS is unsupported. Are
> > you interested in fixing this?
> >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=159123
> Yes, Edward, can you look into this?
So xattr is now a supported feature in Reiser3?
Not sure what the point is recommending people test unsupported stuff in
Fedora if they're going to be closed WONTFIX anyway... does Fedora want
unsupported stuff tested or not? It would be nice to get an official
statement on the issue.
-Dan
6:21 p.m.
New subject: <4> post_create: setxatter failed
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:27:49PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 01:03, Hans Reiser <reiser(a)namesys.com> wrote:
> > Russell Coker wrote:
> > >Hans, there is a bug reported against Reiser3 which has been closed as
> > > WONTFIX as it's a ReiserFS kernel issue and ReiserFS is unsupported.
Are
> > > you interested in fixing this?
> > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=159123
> > Yes, Edward, can you look into this?
> So xattr is now a supported feature in Reiser3?
Not sure what the point is recommending people test unsupported stuff in
Fedora if they're going to be closed WONTFIX anyway... does Fedora want
unsupported stuff tested or not? It would be nice to get an official
statement on the issue.
If you hit bugs in JFS/XFS/Reiserfs, you're pretty much guaranteed not
to get Red Hat folks jumping on those bugs. There's just not enough
manpower to attack everything (especially with some of those filesystems
being very complicated internally), and hence we narrow the scope of bugs
by limiting the filesystems we class as 'supported'[1].
The best way forward if you must use those filesystems for whatever reason and
you find bugs, is to file them upstream. As Fedora aggressively tracks the
upstream kernel, the faster stuff is fixed there, the faster it gets fixed in
Fedora.
Dave
[1] Supported is something of a misnomer here given Fedora by its nature
is unsupported, but for sake of argument think "We'll investigate this
bug if it gets filed in bugzilla.redhat.com"
7:58 p.m.
New subject: <4> post_create: setxatter failed
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
> Not sure what the point is recommending people test unsupported
stuff in
> Fedora if they're going to be closed WONTFIX anyway... does Fedora want
> unsupported stuff tested or not? It would be nice to get an official
> statement on the issue.
If you hit bugs in JFS/XFS/Reiserfs, you're pretty much guaranteed not
to get Red Hat folks jumping on those bugs. There's just not enough
manpower to attack everything (especially with some of those filesystems
being very complicated internally), and hence we narrow the scope of bugs
by limiting the filesystems we class as 'supported'[1].
The best way forward if you must use those filesystems for whatever reason and
you find bugs, is to file them upstream. As Fedora aggressively tracks the
upstream kernel, the faster stuff is fixed there, the faster it gets fixed in
Fedora.
[1] Supported is something of a misnomer here given Fedora by its nature
is unsupported, but for sake of argument think "We'll investigate this
bug if it gets filed in bugzilla.redhat.com"
Actually the problem here is that these bugs appear to be regressions in
the fedora _installer_ (which is why they were filed against anaconda).
That is, they are not related to kernel bugs (you cannot even install
reiserfs with selinux *disabled*). But they are summarily closed WONTFIX
which I find troubling.
Something is busted in the installer, a regression from FC3. Silent
failures, install corruption, etc. It might indicate more serious general
problems lurking about in the installer. But it gets closed WONTFIX
without even a second thought.
Worse yet I ran into an x86_64 bug yesterday where the kernel would panic
on the installer if you had unclean xfs partitions in your system (even
if you were only installing ext3). Why bother reporting when these things
get instantly closed WONTFIX because they have "xfs" in them?
-Dan
1:06 a.m.
New subject: <4> post_create: setxatter failed
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 10:58, Dan Hollis <goemon(a)anime.net> wrote:
> If you hit bugs in JFS/XFS/Reiserfs, you're pretty much
guaranteed not
> to get Red Hat folks jumping on those bugs. There's just not enough
> manpower to attack everything (especially with some of those filesystems
> being very complicated internally), and hence we narrow the scope of bugs
> by limiting the filesystems we class as 'supported'[1].
One thing that Dave didn't mention is that our lack of ability to fix bugs in
ReiserFS does not mean it's a waste of time to test such things.
Hans now has his people working on fixing this bug, and if nothing else it is
now a known issue so other people can avoid wasting time on it.
Actually the problem here is that these bugs appear to be regressions
in
the fedora _installer_ (which is why they were filed against anaconda).
That is, they are not related to kernel bugs (you cannot even install
reiserfs with selinux *disabled*). But they are summarily closed WONTFIX
which I find troubling.
I have just installed a machine with ReiserFS as the root file system. I
booted the installer with "selinux=0 reiserfs" and did a minimal install.
Things worked fine, the machine booted, and I've logged in as root.
Please tell me exactly how you caused the installer to break.
Something is busted in the installer, a regression from FC3. Silent
failures, install corruption, etc. It might indicate more serious general
problems lurking about in the installer. But it gets closed WONTFIX
without even a second thought.
The corruption is file system corruption. It is a bug in ReiserFS.
Worse yet I ran into an x86_64 bug yesterday where the kernel would
panic
on the installer if you had unclean xfs partitions in your system (even
if you were only installing ext3). Why bother reporting when these things
get instantly closed WONTFIX because they have "xfs" in them?
File a bug report. Anything that prevents an ext3 install should be
considered to be a serious bug. Regardless of whatever happened to be on
your hard disk before you started the install you should be able to complete
a regular install.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
2:38 a.m.
New subject: <4> post_create: setxatter failed
> [1] Supported is something of a misnomer here given Fedora by
its nature
> is unsupported, but for sake of argument think "We'll investigate this
> bug if it gets filed in bugzilla.redhat.com"
Actually the problem here is that these bugs appear to be regressions in
the fedora _installer_ (which is why they were filed against anaconda).
That is, they are not related to kernel bugs (you cannot even install
reiserfs with selinux *disabled*). But they are summarily closed WONTFIX
which I find troubling.
the same is true for reiser/xfs/etc bugs in the installer. Unless they
come with a patch, they're not getting attention by RH folks.
Does that make them second class citizens? Only partially. If nobody
else cares about them enough to make a patch either, then yes they end
up being second class citizens. Otoh if someone else stands up and
starts caring, they aren't.
6904
days inactive
6905
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Arjan van de Ven -
Dan Hollis -
Dave Jones -
Russell Coker