From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#39505: Adding filesystem utilities based on file-systems Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:37:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20200220183726.GA6891@jasmine.lan> References: <20200208003122.GA31711@jasmine.lan> <87blpu2av8.fsf@apteryx.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j4qi3-0005Mn-PY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j4qi2-0008RD-Ps for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39870) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j4qi2-0008QN-KA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j4qi2-0001CN-Fp for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87blpu2av8.fsf@apteryx.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Maxim Cournoyer Cc: 39505@debbugs.gnu.org On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:31:07PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > What is the use case? Just having btrfs utilities to manage Btrfs file > systems, or is there some problems to avoid? I know that for NFS you > must add nfs-utils so that the util-linux provided 'mount' is able to > mount NFS shares. It's just to manage the filesystems. For example, the equivalent of `df -h` requires btrfs-progs. > If the later is the use case, perhaps we could try to hard reference to > each file system utility in util-linux, instead of having it dispatch > some tool supposed to be in the PATH? I'm not sure how difficult that > would be, and it'd for sure increase the size of util-linux, but perhaps > the pros outweighs the cons. Is there some integration between util-linux and btrfs-progs?