On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:22 AM Michael Whapples contact@ashotinthedark.online wrote:
I have looked through the source of the arm-image-installer and now understand exactly what it is doing and yes I see how it really is not suited to setting the FS, the image determines that.
BTRFS versions of the minimal images would be nice but I guess not essential as I have managed until now without BTRFS on my ARM devices.
Well having two minimal images requires twice the QA resources and I've had explicit requests for something to remain ext4 as it's more widely available and known at this time and it eases testing for some users/usecases as it's well known/tested.
You can use anaconda to install your own custom image for whatever you like as well.
If doing BTRFS images for none-desktop images, then minimal is probably enough as one can build up whatever they want from that.
Regards
Michael Whapples
On 14/11/2020 21:44, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 4:43 PM Michael Whapples contact@ashotinthedark.online wrote:
Neal and Matthew thanks for clarifying that. Yes the various announcements do say desktop editions, the significance of that must have just passed me by.
would be nice if the ARM image installer would allow selecting the FS when writing the image. Not sure how much work that would be to support.
Unfortunately, that would be very hard. If it was desired, *maybe* we could produce alternate Btrfs-based versions for the non-desktop variants...
arm mailing list -- arm@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/arm@lists.fedoraproject.org