Re: Feature Request

[Kevin Freeman <kfreem02 comcast net>]

Ethan Bonick wrote:
> > Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > But you have to be realistic about configuration tools.  If you are
> > > looking for a vast increase in the number of options, and thus the
> > > complexity, of basic things like filesystems, there will be an
> > > exponential increase in the codebase necessary for configuration
> > > tools.   There are only limited resources available.   As linuxconf
> > > demonstrated, you have to be REALLY good at writing configuration
> > > tools, or you end up with a big mess.
> >
> > Have you looked at anaconda code?  It _already_ contains code to handle
> > the requested filesystems, unless it was recently ripped out.  The GUI
> > just hides that fact from the end user.
>
>
> Why bother putting it in if you are going to hide it?

Now that is the $6 million question.  From past responses I gather that 
the reason is that Red Hat utterly despises everything except ext2/3. 
And now they have even stopped including kernel modules for the other 
filesystems on the install CDs, making the "workaround" even harder. 
What once required a simple "linux reiserfs" at the boot prompt now 
requires 2 more steps: build a new boot kernel with needed fs modules, 
and build a new boot CD containing the newly-built kernel.  I wonder how 
many users will switch to other distros rather than taking the 
opportunity to learn how to build a custom install CD?

... but I'm not bitter ...   OK, maybe just a little. :)

Kevin