Re: lvm - I'll maintain it. - ITP lvm24
On 2000-12-14 19:05, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
>How will you handle kernel upgrades?
>
>If I download a plain ole tar.gz of 2.4.1 from kernel.org and compile it
>with only the lvm-common and lvm-0.81-tools packages installed, that could
>be bad. Maybe some modifications to kernel-package to add a dependency for
>the correct lvm-tools would work, although that adds alot of complexity to
>kernel-package that perhaps "should not" be there.
>
>I would suggest, one meta-package "lvm" that depends on lvm-common and ALL
>the lvm tools versions. That way, when the oldest versions of lvm are
>totally obsolete, a new lvm metapackage can get be produced that doesn't
>depend on the old version of the lvm-tools.
When I was using 2.1.* kernels the version of ifconfig in Debian didn't work
properly initially.
If you use 2.2.x with the standard RAID drivers and then install 2.4.0
without installing the raidtools2 package then things will stop working.
If you install 2.4.0 without a recent ppp, modutils, or e2fsprogs then you'll
find things don't work. If you don't have a recent enough gcc or binutils
then you can't even compile the kernel.
These are issues that could possibly be addressed in the kernel-package. But
I don't maintain that or find that I am inconvenianced by the lack of this
feature, so this doesn't interest me. Discuss it with Manoj Srivastava
<srivasta@debian.org> if you are interested in proceeding with this.
I believe that what I suggested (or the alternate suggestion of using
wrappers) will make my package more usable in the event of kernel upgrades
than most kernel-related packages in Debian, and I believe that it will
satisfy all the requirements of users.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: