On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:59:35AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: > * AJ Lewis <lewis@sistina.com> [010326 17:39]: > > 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 > > Next time, dont put the binaries in /usr/sbin. One of my friends tried > out the sistina packages and had that problem and his /usr/sbin was on a > LVM partition. > > Probally best to put some sort of install check in to make absoluetly > sure /sbin isn't LVM mounted, and post a warning if it is at least. (via > debconf, so it emails it at least.) Yeah, that friend was me. ;-) No worries. I had a handy copy of tomsrtbt available and my / partition was not LVM'ed. No blood, no foul. Anyway, if you need them sponsored, I can do so. I've talked to AJ before about LVM, and I've talked with Tom. I've always been reassured that Tom's packages were in incoming, however, I've never seen them get past that barrier and make it into unstable. If you haven't noticed, the lvm packages are versioned based on the IO Protocol version or IOP. lvm-0.8final was IOP 5 or 6. lvm-0.9.0-beta3 was something like 10, and now they're up to something like IOP 11 with 0.9.0-beta6. Therefore, the lvm10 and lvm10-dev packages refer to the IOP version 10 of the kernel patch and tools. Packages for lvm-0.9.0-beta6 should be refered to as lvm11 and lvm11-dev. It's all very confusing, yes, but the LVM developers have hashed out a way to understand what version of the kernel IOP you are running and use the tools appropriately. I do not believe that the latest tools are backwards compatible with the older kernel IOP's though, so updates to the lvm tools MUST BE accompanied by a kernel upgrade. Alas, I'm still running my beta3 packages on the 2.4.0 kernel, despite some of the bugs that were reported against them. I'll sponsor the packages in all their confusing splendor, since I have a vested interest in maintaing LVM on my boxes: lvscan -- ACTIVE "/dev/vg01/lv_usr" [2 GB] lvscan -- ACTIVE "/dev/vg01/lv_tmp" [256 MB] lvscan -- ACTIVE "/dev/vg01/lv_var" [1 GB] lvscan -- ACTIVE "/dev/vg01/lv_usr_local" [812 MB] lvscan -- ACTIVE "/dev/vg01/lv_home" [3 GB] lvscan -- 5 logical volumes with 7.04 GB total in 1 volume group lvscan -- 5 active logical volumes *grin* I'll give AJ a ring and hash out the detail so he can bring me up to date with beta3. I'll still consider Tom MIA but genuinely interested, as that was the last status I heard from him. If I update, it'll be NMU under a no-reply situation from Tom... IF there's enough interest among everyone here to update. Given that 2.4.0 uses lvm-0.9-beta2, it would be a good idea to have at least lvm10 available (or is it lvm9). See what a nightmare this is? That's what you get for bleeding edge technology. -- Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr Key fingerprint = B4AB D627 9CBD 687E 7A31 1950 0CC7 0B18 206C 5AFD
Attachment:
pgpoEhlQ_qMYr.pgp
Description: PGP signature