From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <3B782E02.B5DB2FC8@tls.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 23:44:02 +0400 From: Michael Tokarev MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc References: <20010811235718.A20414@linux.com> <20010812200701.A657@btconnect.com> <20010812221650.A6589@vestdata.no> <20010813161301.B6466@uk.sistina.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: linux-lvm@sistina.com Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > [] > In the 'experimental' branch each tool has been converted into a > function and they have all been linked into a single 'lvm' > binary. This binary takes lvm commands from standard input > and processes them. Or it can be invoked with argv[0] set to > the name of an existing tool (eg 'ln lvm pvcreate') and then it > will behave as that tool. There are no plans to change existing > command line arguments etc. However, in the interests of > achieving consistency between the tools and making it easy to > handle their output reliably, there are likely to be minor > changes to the output formats, error codes, signal-handling etc. Wow, great! No more tons of tiny executables! Wow! Looks very good. Just like `cvs' now -- "cvs co", "cvs add" etc... Well, ok, but one little question/suggestion: why not have *some* tools instead of one (a step back? no): pvm for physycal volumes, lvg for volume groups and lvm for logical volumes? This seems to be logical... Anyway, this is exactly a direction I always wanted to ask and/or point to, but I remember some words somewhere on Sistina? Or old LVM homepage (where it was?) ? that such mergeing will not happen because of something. (It may be even lvm FAQ or HOWTO). Unfortunately, I don't remember reasons behind that. Regards, Michael.