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

Re: LVM packages up for adoption

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:11:50 +0000, Tim Cutts wrote:

> On 18 Jan 2005, at 4:06 pm, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:46:18PM +0000, Tim Cutts wrote:
>>> On 17 Jan 2005, at 5:42 pm, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:28:56AM +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
>>>>> lvm2	        - in active development, upstream helpful but often 
>>>>> busy.
>>>>> device-mapper   - largely stable. occasional releases.
>>>>> lvm10	        - stable. no more upstream development at all.
>>>>> lvm-common      - native package. small number of bugs need sorting
>>>>> out
>>>>> multipath-tools - in active development, upstream very helpful.
>>>> I'm interrested onm co-maintaining lvm2 and device-mapper.
>>> As am I - we use these heavily on some fairly serious kit at work, so 
>>> I
>>> can justify the time... co-maintaining sounds like a sensible thing to
>>> do.
>> So how about you three co-maintain lvm2 & devmapper (and maybe 
>> lvm-common ? it's
>> as much part of LVM as the lvm2 package really), and I'll hang onto 
>> lvm10 &
>> multipath.
> Sounds good to me.  I'll be able to help you with testing 
> multipath-tools too; that and lvm2 are the principal bits we use (we 
> don't use Debian device-mapper stuff because we build our own kernels 
> from scratch)
> We use this stuff on both IA64 (HP rx4640) and i386 (HP DL360/380, 
> mostly) architectures to talk to our dual-fabric SAN (HP StorageWorks 
> HSV110 controllers on the back)
> How should we coordinate this?

My recommendation would be an LVM alioth project, w/ a svn or arch
(preferred) repository.  I've kept track of lvm2 stuff in arch for a
number of years, it has worked well.

Patrick, it might even be worth all 4 of us maintaining all the LVM
related packages (throwing lvm10 in with the rest), since Tim uses
multipath-tools, and none of us care much for lvm10.

Reply to: