Re: To partman or not to partman (was Re: release status)
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:35:11PM -0300, Andre Luis Lopes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:45:47PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >I agree, and deciding one way or the other on partman will help, since
> > >we can drop the other one to a low priority and out of memory.
> > Well, I think partman rocks. Notably, a lot of people working on extra
> > architectures and subarchitectures appear to be hoping that partman takes
> > over, because it means that they just have to get libparted support for their
> > architecture, rather than making udebs of various and sundry tools and
> > supporting all their different interfaces in debconf. I think that's reason
> > enough to switch to it. Furthermore, it's actually pretty spiffy. :-)
> Sorry if it's completely unrelated, but I think that if partman is going
> to work fine with LVM/RAID fine, we would certainly prefer it over the
> other alternatives.
So, please help in adding LVM/RAID support in libparted, and it will be
> We have a lvmcfg already and I would love if it worked fine with
> partman. As for RAID support, it would rock even better, as we don't
> have any working tool for configuring RAID yet.
I don't know the partman code base, so i don't know if it is easily
possible to use both libparted and an external tool with it. Maybe it is