On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:22 AM Michael Whapples
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.
> Michael Whapples
> On 14/11/2020 21:44, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 4:43 PM Michael Whapples
> > <contact(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: