Re: LVM and RAID
I asked to wait to hear what Daniel has to say. This whole thread has
been a lot of heat and very little light. I would ask again to please
wait to hear what he has to say.
I have perhaps overstated some of my points and gotten off track in my
zeal to explain why things are the way they are. I don't think including
these two tools is off the table, and Daniel would have the last word
anyway ...
On 29/08/13 01:38 AM, ian_bruce@fastmail.net wrote:
> No, I was pretty clear in my first message:
My mistake. On a re-read you were. Just lost my way. If I had paid more
attention from the outset, I would have listed your alternatives for
accomplishing that without changes to the default image and we'd be done.
> No, I get it. I answer every point you raise, so you keep on making up
> new and increasingly irrelevant objections.
You're entitled to your opinion as to their relevance. All I was trying
to convey is many live users have their own use cases and each one might
think their own use case should be covered in the default images. But we
do have a flexible set of tools that can be used to address everyone's
own use cases without changing the prebuilt ones.
> If that's the guiding principle, it's clearly a flexible one, because
> all of the desktop ISO images --
>
> http://live.debian.net/gitweb/?p=live-images.git;a=tree;f=images/gnome-desktop/config/package-lists;hb=HEAD
> http://live.debian.net/gitweb/?p=live-images.git;a=tree;f=images/kde-desktop/config/package-lists;hb=HEAD
> http://live.debian.net/gitweb/?p=live-images.git;a=tree;f=images/lxde-desktop/config/package-lists;hb=HEAD
> http://live.debian.net/gitweb/?p=live-images.git;a=tree;f=images/xfce-desktop/config/package-lists;hb=HEAD
>
> -- already explicitly include packages task-print-server, task-english,
> task-laptop, task-ssh-server, console-tools, memtest86+, and rsync, all
> with priority "optional" or "extra".
Yes, there is a precedent for inclusion of extra materials. You'll note
that the bulk of these are covered in various task-* packages, as I
said. This is partly why I want to hear Daniel weigh in as ultimately he
has the final word.
> No doubt for very good and valid technical reasons. As there would be
> for lvm2 and mdadm.
I don't know the history of all of those, but I would suppose so.
> And nowhere did I suggest altering, or maintaining divergent versions
> of, the task-gnome-desktop, task-kde-desktop, task-lxde-desktop, and
> task-xfce-desktop packages.
Since you raised the objection that you didn't like to use the rescue
image because it was command-line only, was it jumping to conclusions
for me to think you wanted the prebuilt desktop images to serve as a
rescue system on occasion? Today *you* only want just a couple of rescue
tools. Tomorrow another user will want more, etc. That's how we ended up
with the lengthy rescue list we have today.
> Deciding that the ability to mount existing filesystems is important
> certainly comes under the heading of "focusing on the live part of the
> problem", which is all that I'm suggesting.
Fair enough.
> In answer to your inevitable question of "why not use that, then?" --
> normally you could, but there are situations in which you might need
> Debian-specific tools, and therefore actually need to be running Debian.
I've already made suggestions as to how you could accomplish this on
your own using only Debian. None of those work for you?
> Nowhere did I propose creating "variants". This is a strawman argument
> of your own invention. I said that RAID and LVM filesystems could be
> accommodated at the cost of increasing the size of the existing images
> by about 0.25%, which you just acknowledged is "not too big" and "easy
> to include".
I was just following where "let's expand the purpose of our desktop
images to handle the 'rescue' use case" leads if you apply the same
logic to accepting these two to the next two, and the next four, and so
on ... Sorry for getting off track from what you actually proposed. I
just don't know who decides which of the many possible packages from the
rescue category are "worth including" and on what criteria.
Ben
Reply to: