From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Muller Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Can LVM2 and CLVM co-exist Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:48:22 -0600 References: <200510272317.02488.edwardam@interlix.com> <200510281131.28632.edwardam@interlix.com> <4365EB1C.5050405@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4365EB1C.5050405@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2886685.mV7xIkOc99"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200510311048.25474.edwardam@interlix.com> Reply-To: edwardam@interlix.com, LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: To: Patrick Caulfield Cc: linux-lvm@redhat.com --nextPart2886685.mV7xIkOc99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 31 October 2005 03:59 am, Patrick Caulfield wrote: [snip] > > But on investigating further I see that they compile lvm with clvm in > > that package. Presumably so you can have different versions of clvm and > > lvm installed. Why you would want to do that I don't know. > > That sounds more like a dangerous idea than a feature ! > clvmd & lvm2 really ought to be kept in sync. Well they are the same versions at least, but yes. I agree. =2D-=20 Edward Muller - Interlix edwardam@interlix.com 417-862-0573 PGP Key: http://interlix.com/Members/edwardam/pgpkeys --nextPart2886685.mV7xIkOc99 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDZkrZ6NYdR1GOdLkRAulbAJ9q110abCtCFgCnr4voVAh2cCQxywCg6sim UfkzXkHZ58yuNM/cmDZ34OM= =iGzU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2886685.mV7xIkOc99--