Re: Bug#260763: [powerpc] Problems with logical volume setup during installation
> > Why? Because we don't know how MockOS will react to a partition _type_ set
>
> I don't know any MockOS, please provide real examples.
s/MockOS/MacOS/g
> > to anything but Apple_Bootstrap, Apple_HFS, Apple_UNIX_SVR2 or Apple_Free.
> > If you're sure (or just reasonably confident) Linux_LVM will be ignored by
>
> Just give it a try and enlighten us.
Just as soon as I get another spare disk. BTW anyone can try that, so the
call goes to the Mac users in general.
> > Apple boot and disk mount code, go ahead. I can only test this for a
> > fairly narrow range of OS X versions, and maybe a resurrected 8.6. Since
> > there's always the partition name (for Apple_UNIX_SVR2 partitions which
> > MacOS ignores since prehistoric times), I didn't really want to bother
> > testing this.
>
> Yeah, but imagine that the user wants to use the partition name for something
> sensible, and all this goes down.
The user can still name the partition anything (s)he wants as long as LVM
is part of the name.
> > And libfdisk (for example) used to look at the partition _name_ field in
> > Mac partition tables for clues where to find swap. What's the problem with
> > that?
>
> well, suppose that a french user wants to name it "echange" instead of swap ?
Too bad really. Suppose a french user is even unhappy with the Linux_Swap
type setting. Same thing. With respect to computers, broken english
is lingua franca.
> > though, let's just try with 'Linux_RAID' and 'Linux_LVM' partition _type_
> > fields in Mac partition tables, maybe add Linux_Swap later and keep plain
> > data partitons as before. That should keep the comaptibility code to a
> > minimum (look for 'swap' in type and name fields) and get the scheme some
> > limited testing.
>
> Ok, but as said, Colin Watson vetoed me on that, and as we already have a
> parted in experimental, ...
Which does this, so unstable parted we shouldn't bother about?
> > A mac-fdisk user can change either at will. Linux always reserves your
>
> The future belongs to libparted frontends though. And this is not linux, but
> the new user-friendly debian-installer partman, so ...
I don't care if it has super cow powers. You can't count on the partition
table to be created by Linux tools, much less parted.
> > right to shoot yourself into the foot. But for the sake of saving users
> > from their own stupidity, go ahead with the scheme you suggested.
>
> I would have for ages, but Colin Watson vetoed it without larger consensus,
> and since he is one of the RMs, ... And beside i sort of agree with his
> arguments about compatibility problems.
So who is the LVM tools maintainer, and which committee do we have to
address this across distros?
Michael
Reply to: