On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 3:59 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Am 14.01.2022 um 23:51 schrieb Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com>:
>
>
> Wait, I thought this change was about making the path consistent
> within Fedora variants?
The question still is whether this is actually useful and beneficial.
If you value Fedora having a snapshot and rollback scheme of some
kind, it's useful and beneficial. If you don't, then the change is
neutral because it has not a single technical downside presented so
far - just emotive ones.
This change also doesn't put pressure on future decisions. It doesn't
favor particular ways of snapshotting or rollback mechanisms, doesn't
care about what volume manager is being used, etc.
All the arguments for this move that I have read so far explain
benefits related to an image based distribution. I have not seen any advantages of this
move for a file based distribution like Server or Workstation.
Again if you see no value in snapshots/rollbacks, you don't see the
advantage. If you like the idea, then you'd also necessarily come to
realize that some pressure on organizing files into locations with
compatible life cycles, so those locations can be independently rolled
back. The change is already employed in traditional RPM based
(open)SUSE a couple of years, the links to those discussions are in
the change proposal.
And when I look at tools like LVM snapshot, I can't see any
either. And I couldn’t find something in a short online search. But maybe I missed
something? Then I would be grateful for some info/links.
If anything it benefits LVM more, because each additional carveout on
LVM requires a separate file system. On btrfs it's cheap to add
subvolumes since they take up no space and instead all share a single
storage pool, though it organizationally adds complexity.
Would putting /var/lib/rpm on a dedicated LVM LV actually be
entertained? I think it wouldn't.
--
Chris Murphy