Re: LVM and RAID
On 28/08/13 04:37 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 06:04:33 -0300
> Ben Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
>> No, the intended purpose of live-tools is to provide tools that must
>> behave differently in a live environment as alternatives for the
>> standard ones, or else other tools providing live-specific features.
>> The packages you propose, while useful, are not in that category.
> I don't really see how perl and rsync can be regarded as "live-specific
They aren't. We're talking about the intended purpose of live-tools
itself, aren't we? It's dependencies aren't the features, or even the
tools themselves. They are merely things the package needs to provide
those features and tools. Is that clearer?
> Since you agree that it would be beneficial to have lvm2 and mdadm (and
> parted?) included in the desktop ISO images, then surely the easiest way
> to accomplish this is to just list them as dependencies of live-tools.
Easy, but wrong, because that's not what live-tools is for. And I didn't
say that I agree that they should be included in the desktop ISO images.
I agreed merely that the packages are useful. (In case you thought I was
saying they aren't.) However, I can think of tons of useful packages
that could be included in the images, each of which could be
rationalized the same way "it's useful, and it's only a few meg; what
objection could you possibly have?"
> Alternatively, create a new pseudo-package called "task-live" which
> pulls them in, and have that included in the build via either
> "live.list.chroot" or "standard.list.chroot", which are in all the ISO
> build lists.
> What objection could there be to that?
Why task-live? What makes these "live" things. I'm just not seeing it.