On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:45:47PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > <joeyh@debian.org> 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. 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. Just my 0.02 cents. -- ++----------------------------------------------------------------------++ || André Luís Lopes andrelop@debian.org || || http://people.debian.org/~andrelop || || Debian-BR Project http://www.debian-br.org || || Public GPG KeyID 9D1B82F6 ||
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature