Re: Bug#347479: Seems to not handle VG creation correctly
> > Proposal:
> > _Description: Existing physical volume in the selected device
> > LVM cannot automatically partition devices which already contain
> > one or more more physical volumes.
>
> There is a big difference between "LVM cannot autopartion" and
> "Autopartitioning using LVM is not possible" though...
>
> I'll think of something.
Yes, you probably can find something better. My point was mostly
avoiding the repetition of short in long description and, if possible,
handle the short description as a kind of title, like we do elsewhere.
> > > +Template: partman-auto-lvm/vg_exists
> > > +Type: error
> > > +_Description: Volume group name already in use
> > > + The volume group name used to automatically partition using LVM is
> > > + already in use. It is possible to specify an alternative name by
> > > + running the installation at medium or low priority.
> >
> > Fine....even though I'm not fond of referring to another package which
> > could cause consistency problems in the future if something is changed
> > regarding priorities.
>
> Hm? Which other package?
cdebconf
> It's just that the question is not asked at high/critical priority with
> current code. Alternative of course would be to scratch that and, if
> there is a name conflict, always ask the user to enter an alternative
> name for the VG (i.e. at critical priority). I thought of doing that, but
> did not really want to change current functionality at this moment.
My point was mostly that we have no other place in the templates where
we refer to the behaviour of D-I regarding "priorities". I can propose
"It is possible to specify an alternative name in expert installs" or,
avoiding the passive forme, "Expert installs allow specifying an
alternative name for volumes groups".
Reply to: