Re: LVM and RAID
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:50:08 -0300
Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> wrote:
> 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?"
Well, then, I must have misunderstood what you meant by this:
> I don't disagree. They would be useful and not too big to include.
> It's just a problem better solved as a group of packages maintained as
> a task-* within Debian than having the Debian Live project decide by
> ones and twos "extra stuff" to include that deviates from the default
> install.
Which is why I offered this proposal:
>> 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.
Because one of the things that people very commonly want to do with a
live ISO is access their existing filesystems, when they can't boot off
them for some reason. LVM and RAID are not rare or unusual; they are
standard for any serious installation.
If this usage is not contemplated, then why include the ext{2,3,4}
utilities on the desktop ISOs?
You'll say "that's what the rescue ISO is for." But then you have to use
a text-mode console, which is really inconvenient if you need to look at
a lot of things simultaneously, or refer to PDF or HTML (or online)
documentation. It would be much better if basic mass-storage
functionality was included in the desktop ISOs, as it very easily could
be.
Which was my original point -- I thought we were just discussing what
was the best way to accomplish it.
-- Ian Bruce
Reply to: