Why is the default fs only ext4 or btrfs?

General system EndeavourOS installation
61

Yes, those are the locations.

The default is literally /vmlinuz-linux. You probably want it to be something like /boot/vmlinuz-linux

1 Like
62

What a can of worms! :face_with_monocle:

63

There is no valid reason not too include it ā€¦ the ā€œtoo complicatedā€ reason is complete :cow: :poop: .

2 Likes
64

Great!

Iā€™ll need to have a look at this now!
Perhaps I could try an install on Sunday.

Thanks a lot!

@dalto,

something like the following would work?

# Defaults to "/boot/efi", may be empty (but weird effects ensue)

efiSystemPartition: "/efi"

# This optional setting specifies the size of the EFI system partition.

# If nothing is specified, the default size of 300MiB will be used.

#

# This size applies both to automatic partitioning and the checks

# during manual partitioning. A minimum of 32MiB is enforced,

# 300MiB is the default, M is treated as MiB, and if you really want

# one-million (10^6) bytes, use MB.

#

efiSystemPartitionSize: 1024M
2 Likes
65

Pull request here please :vulcan_salute:

66

Let me grab the fill list of filesystems that Calamares supports and then I will work on that. :rofl:

67

okay keep display size in mind only or change the filesystem list to show up horizontal.
:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like
68

Personally, as an average user with only one laptop, I have no sensible need for using XFS. Ext4 is more than enough. If I were to consider another filesystem, it would possibly be Btrfs, but itā€™s still somewhat ā€˜experimentalā€™ (though stable), so Iā€™m not yet convinced thereā€™s a tangible need to switch over at this point yet.

Just a note, Iā€™m seeing a mix of users own personal philosophies about how things should be and a mix of pragmatic ideas as well. The two donā€™t always go together, so just be aware of the differences between the two to help hopefully not over-complicate this matter.

Now my own personal views aside, practically speaking, if all there is to do is add one line to the Calamares installer and thatā€™s it, Iā€™d say go for it. As long as thereā€™s no extra burden for the devs to maintain it, Iā€™d say go for it. As long as their are no obvious downsides on the devs end, Iā€™d say go for it. If it requires any additional time, maintenance, and/or testing after certain updates to make sure the XFS portion isnā€™t borked in the installer, then I would consider leaving be as others have suggested using the manual partition to get the filesystem of your choice.

Just looking from the forum search history here, XFS is more talked about in conjunction with other filesystems than actually is used, or at least thatā€™s the perception here anyways.

tl;dr, add it to the installer is thereā€™s no additional burden to the devs, otherwise leave it for manual partitioning.

1 Like
69

In ext4 I trust. It works. Itā€™s the Toyota Camry of file systems. I will continue until I see reason not to.

2 Likes
70

it is very interesting to follow this thread and see all the different opinions. The most noteworthy objections against including xfs are:

  1. I dont need it
  2. This is too much for the casual user
  3. This is against the core values of EndeavourOS

Threfore I suggest we follow an approach very similar to what @joekamprad already proposed:

We include xfs only on Mondays. To not overwhelm the casual user we should take out the ext4 option every odd day and the btrfs option every even day. This will leave newbies with only one filesystem to pick from. There is no more convenience than that. And the cherry on the top would be a script that pulls partition.conf from the Manjaro installer every Sunday. Because that is not only including xfs but also f2fs.I could start working on this if need be. :rofl:

3 Likes
71

Iā€™m looking forward to a very interesting pull request :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like
72

and as @dalto suggestedā€¦ the will check if we can add even more filesystems there :sunglasses:
Or one filesystem for each day of the week?

Nah jokes aside as I say adding XFS would not be a big deal and it is a save to use filesystem even more than BTRFS I would say. But indeed this thread does not give a clear picture about what this Comedy-Community think about adding it or not :clown_face:

3 Likes
73

I have moved from neutrality to being in favour.

1 Like
74

Iā€™ve tried btrfs. I can see the allure if you do backups. I guess Iā€™ve just never really noticed a reason to not use ext4. It seems to work really well, and itā€™s very stable.

I wouldnā€™t be opposed to adding more . . . itā€™s really up to Joe and Manny - I donā€™t know how much more effort that is. . .

I know on the testing side, thereā€™s already a lot of permutations to test between isoā€™s. If weā€™re going to continue to add features - we may need to be more methodical in that department.

3 Likes
75

It depends how fast you type but i would estimate the effort to be between 1-3 minutes if you include the time it takes to ensure your code is up-to-date, make the change and push it to github.

2 Likes
76

Thatā€™s including setting up the automatic partitioning options in calamares and everything that goes with it? 3 minutes?

77

It is already fully supported by Calamares. It is literally a matter of opening one config file and changing:

availableFileSystemTypes:  ["ext4", "btrfs"]

to:

availableFileSystemTypes:  ["ext4", "btrfs", "xfs"]
4 Likes
78

I really donā€™t see the point of continuing this thread. Most of the active users seem to have said what they think and it seems to be split between yes and no.

So if it is as simple as changing one code line then just do it. What is the point of just dragging the thread more? You guys handle the backend you know if itā€™s going to add more work or not. Just make a decision to add or not.

3 Likes
79

Conversely, there is also no point to not continuing the topic.

3 Likes
80

If itā€™s that easy, maybe more could be implemented then.

1 Like