Re: lvm - I'll maintain it. - ITP lvm24
On Friday 15 December 2000 18:34, you wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I agree with you, FWIW. For some unexplainable reason, the wrapper
> idea apeals to me more than the changing links, but both seem equally
> workable.
>
> If you choose to go with the wrapper approach, it would be nice if there
> was a --show-choice option (or some such name) that showed which version
> of lvm it was trying to use -- it might be a useful debugging tool.
I have decided that wrappers are a requirement and that my previous idea of
sym-links was stupid.
The sym-links idea fails in the following ways:
Doesn't work when root is mounted read-only.
Has big problems if you mount root, do LVM stuff, then mount /usr if some of
the lvm utilities are in /usr/sbin (I believe that they aren't all required
to be in /sbin).
Doesn't conveniantly allow the administrator to force things if the script
gets it wrong (failure modes that aren't catastrophic is one of the good
points of Linux).
So what I plan to do is use a wrapper that first checks an environment
variable. So if the scripts are unable to determine the version the
administrator can do "export LVM_VERSION=0.9" and then run the programs.
I will build some packages with this support and try it out.
I was originally going to send this as a private message, but I decided that
I had made some reasonably good points supporting my sym-links idea on the
list so therefore I should refute them in case someone decides to implement
them.
--
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: