From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Debian packaging Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:22:17 +0100 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121417221738.00826@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tamas Gergely Cc: Linux-LVM@sistina.com On 2000-12-14 16:50, Tamas Gergely wrote: >As I noticed the LVM utilities are placed under /usr in this LVM.DEB . That's what the old package does. >Wouldn't it be better to use '/' as root not '/usr'? That's what my development packages (which I have shared with no-one) do. >I mean, it would be better to place the utilities into /sbin instead of >/usr/sbin. Depends. One thing I would like to do is go through the utilities and pu= t=20 things that are needed to kickstart a system or to recover a hosed system= =20 into /sbin . Then things that aren't so critical to the boot process (lv= msar=20 springs to mind) belong in /usr/sbin . >(on many systems /usr is located on an LV. But activiting/disactivating >using vgchange is impossible after unmounting /usr) Yes. My package will differ quite a bit from the existing Debian package= =2E =20 Also I plan to make everything use shared libraries. ls, cp, and mv are = not=20 statically linked so I don't think that there is any need for statically=20 linked lvm utilities. My lvm package will be considerably smaller than t= he=20 current one (which is necessary for boot support). I would appreciate any suggestions on this. Also if anyone is brave and=20 wants to beta-test my packages then I would be very interested in hearing= =20 from them. One other thing, it seems that the protocol is changing often. How shoul= d=20 this be managed in Debian packages? I had thought of doing lvm22 and lvm= 24=20 as package names for the 2.2.x and 2.4.x kernels, but now I get the=20 impression that the interfaces will change between those series. Also 0.= 8.1,=20 0.9, and 0.8i all seem to have different protocol versions. This has two problems, one is that users won't know which one they need, = the=20 other is how to manage an upgrade of a kernel! I was thinking that perhaps what I should do is have /sbin/lvm-ver and=20 /lib/lvm-ver directories where "ver" is the version of LVM in question. = Then=20 at boot time there is a script that determines the version of LVM in the=20 kernel and creates sym-links from /sbin and /lib to the correct directori= es. =20 This is REALLY ugly, but it enables a user to cleanly have a machine that= can=20 be booted on 2.2 or 2.4 kernel and just work each time you boot it. Any better suggestions? --=20 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page