Reply: Re: Default filesystem

liliana.perossa at liliana.perossa at
Sat Feb 3 05:06:34 PST 2007

<----Messaggio originale:---->
Da:	TheOldFellow <lfs-dev-bounces at>
Inviato:	sabato 3 febbraio 2007 8.45
A:      <lfs-dev at>
Cc:      <blfs-dev at>
Oggetto: Re: Default filesystem

>I think it's wiki stuff, or hints maybe (if they are not stone dead),
>for the moment.  If we get sufficient interest, AND it looks stable, the
>editors might put something in the book.  You can't ask them to add new
>stuff unless you know how to support it - and who will do the supporting!


Hi and sorry for replying only now...

I wasn't asking that... if perceived in this way sorry it's my fault...

It was only a reflection based on a private conversation with Alexander.

Anyway, I've started using ReiserFS and XFS since they first appeared and had
no troubles except for one of the first releases of xfs.
I built several times the same lfs version on ext3, reiserfs, xfs and reiser4 to catch and
confront build time; tried reconstructing file systems multiple times too.
Reiser4 is young and the bug I experience, imo,  it's not a minor one, for this reason I
said "experimental" support; indeed there's a problem: to use it host system *must* be modified,
opposed to lfs thinking. Regarding infos can be found in this thread:

For the other file systems (IBM JFS, Axis JFFS and Red Hat JFFS2) I tried them only
a couple of times (I experienced a lot of troubles with JFS years ago) so I'm not
so qualified, anyway I've implemented these filesystems support in a project I'm
working on.

Dan said that one is free to use whatever filesystem wanted, that's true, and Alexander, in a private conversion, said, as already reported in a previous reply:

 "Anyway, I am afraid that any attempt to build LFS on any filesystem 
other than ext3 is now considered an unforgivable deviation from the 
book (reason for such thought: for a long time, reiserfsprogs failed to 
build, and xfsprogs page contained a dead link - but both issues are 
fixed now)."

So a, possible bad or wrong, idea but why not moving file system tools from BLFS
(as states the name it's beyond lfs) to LFS (supposing a different fs instead
of ext3) ?

I don't want to be misunderstood nor everything else;
it's a simple and as already said possible bad or wrong or stupid idea...


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list