Re: [powerpc] Problems with logical volume setup during installation
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 09:54:14PM -0800, Shyamal Prasad wrote:
> "Sven" == Sven Luther <email@example.com> writes:
> Sven> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:21:35PM -0800, Shyamal Prasad
> Sven> wrote:
> >> Okay. I suppose this (powermac lvm for d-i) might not happen
> >> by the time Sarge releases. I'd be happy to take a look at it,
> >> but I might not have the skills and/or time....
> Sven> No, the code is trivial (one small parted change, and one
> Sven> upload of parted to move into sarge), what needs doing is
> Sven> discussing this with other distros which run on powermac and
> Sven> lvm upstream.
> Hmmm...I'm still trying to understand what the consensus (solution)
> should be. Please correct me where/if I'm wrong below, :
> 1) PowerMac does not currently have Partition types for Linux. Today
> we are just using an Apple defined type (Apple_UNIX_SVR2) which is
What exactly do you mean by safe ?
> 2) LVM tools can't tell which partitions contain LVM volumes because
> there is no standard partition type for them. It is not sufficient to
> look at an Apple_UNIX_SVR2 partition and determine if it contains
> physical volumes (yes? why?).
> 3) A proposal (from Sven, for example) is to use 'Linux LVM' as a
> partition type on PowerMac systems.
> 4) The parition *name* will not have any real effect on this setup. It
> is far too easy for users to change names.
> 5) The consensus on this paritition type will have to involve upstream
> lvm and then d-i and partman can be fixed in Debian to use this
> type. If upstream lvm agrees, then all Distro's will end up using
> 'Linux LVM' as the type and there will be no compatibility problems in
> the future.
Yes, we should do the same for 'Linux RAID' (altough i would use an underscore
in both cases).
> 6) It seems that a single 'Linux LVM' type is enough. Is there not a
> need to tell between LVM1 and LVM2 partitions? There must still be a
> lot of 2.4.x users out there....
I think not, but then i am no expert. x86 use a single flag.
> I'm willing to do any grunt work to get this consensus (with any
> corrections for my ignorance, I'm presuming this really is grunt
> work), but I'm not even sure where to start. I don't even know who LVM
> upstream really is (the HOTWO at tldp is from Redhat, are they the LVM
> upstream). Or did Michael Schmitz already offer to drive this?
Maybe start with the lvm-tools debian maintainers ?
> >> Does the Sarge ppc installation manual needs an update for the
> Sven> As i understand manual modifications are too late anyway,
> Sven> but then it would be easier to fix the issue.
> Since Frans pointed out that this is actually possible I will probably
> write an bug and propose a patch in any case.
Cool, but i would rather have it fixed.
> Shyamal (who never suspected powerpc would be all this fun ;-)