[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LVM



On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 09:54:07AM -0500, Itai Zukerman wrote:
> I recently upgraded to kernel 2.4.*, converted to LVM, *then* noticed
> that a number of release-critical bugs are filed against lvm, most of
> them with trivial solutions.  Also, it looks like some attempt at
> improving the situation was made with lvm-common, but that was in Dec
> 2000 and doesn't seem to be usable.
> 
> Anyone know what's going on with the lvm/lvm-common packages?  I
> E-mailed the maintainer but haven't heard back and am wondering
> if anyone has any additional info...

Yeah, the debian LVM packages have kind of been in Limbo for about a year
now.  I'm working on packages for 0.9.1 Beta6 that will use a common/base
package to go between kernel versions, and should have them up on the
Sistina web site next week.  Hopefully I will have 0.8 final packages up
shortly after that.  If someone wants to sponser them and upload them to the
debian servers, that would be great!  If someone else wants to deal with
them in, go ahead, but I will be building the packages for Sistina
regardless, at least until there are decent packages in the mainline LVM
distro.

Regards,
-- 
AJ Lewis
Sistina Software Inc.                  Voice:  612-379-3951
1313 5th St SE, Suite 111              Fax:    612-379-3952
Minneapolis, MN 55414                  E-Mail: lewis@sistina.com
http://www.sistina.com

Current GPG fingerprint = 3B5F 6011 5216 76A5 2F6B  52A0 941E 1261 0029 2648
Get my key at: http://www.sistina.com/~lewis/gpgkey
 (Unfortunately, the PKS-type keyservers do not work with multiple sub-keys)

-----Begin Obligatory Humorous Quote----------------------------------------
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro help desk.
-----End Obligatory Humorous Quote------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpcFlbxWtZUN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: