Bug#368633: partman: LVM automatic partitioning not undoable
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 12:04 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:37:18PM -0700, ERIIX M. Blaike wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 21:54 +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > Please tell us more about what you did.
> > 2: In the guided partitioning, choose "Erase entire disk and use LVM"
The point, actually, is that the guided partitioning screen specifically
says "If you do choose to use the guided partitioning tool, you will
still have a chance later to see the results, customize it, and even
undo the partitioning if you do not like it."
The behavior noted is in stark contrast to that comforting statement,
which is/was the reason for the bug report. If you choose the guided
partitioning option without LVM, then nothing is lost until you choose
to finalize it in the main partman screen (just as the comforting
message implies), but if you choose the one with LVM the data is lost
_before_ you get to the main partman menu.
_That_ is the problem -- it specifically says the operation can be
undone when it cannot. The massage there was created before LVM was
included as a guided partitioning option and has not been changed to
reflect the new reality -- the inability to "undo the partitioning if
you do not like it" when you choose the option with LVM.
My original report explained exactly how to fix this, too -- simply put
a note that the LVM guided partitioning option CANNOT be undone while
the regular guided partitioning option CAN.
The inattention on my part was that I could have applied a specific bit
of information I had from AFTER the part of the installation in question
because of previous installs, but even then I would only have had the
resources to have a good idea that the line about undoing would be a lie
with LVM involved -- the fact that partman says you can undo it may
still have thrown me off guard, thinking that the partman devs may have
thought up some way to not need to commit the partition table to play
with lvm. The inattention was that I hadn't even thought it through
that far. I saw that the friendly message said there was nothing to
fear, so I hit the switch so I could see what it does.
You wouldn't agree that a program telling someone specifically that an
operation can be undone when it cannot is a problem?