From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 May 2002 18:47:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 May 2002 18:47:26 -0400 Received: from c17997.eburwd3.vic.optusnet.com.au ([210.49.198.98]:54269 "HELO satisfactory.karma") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 9 May 2002 18:47:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:47:11 +1000 From: Andrew Clausen To: "Steve Pratt" Cc: "Kevin M Corry" , evms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Evms-announce] [ANNOUNCE] EVMS Release 1.0.1 Message-ID: <20020509224711.GA1157@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Accept-Language: en,pt Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 09:37:56AM -0500, Steve Pratt wrote: > >Notice you have no error handling, etc. now? > > Do you mean message handling or error reporting. Forking JFS mkfs gives me > just as many return codes as libparted (pass/fail) Parted gives you a lot more than pass/fail. (Have you read doc/API? There's a section of PedException) > and other than possibly > some messages, this is all EVMS requires. Why? EVMS's messaging system allows interactive error handling. Why not use it? > >Also, while I'm at it: you didn't like my idea for interfacing > >the parted exception system with evms properly? I even wrote the code > >for you (without testing it)... I didn't see a reply to my mail... > >you(s) didn't like it? > > Not that we didn't like it, just have way to many things to do. Ah, ok. > >BTW: what do you think of how libparted interfaces with libreiserfs? > >There has been a lot of work, and it has all been merged properly now. > >I think EVMS should do something similar. Have a look in > >libparted/fs_reiserfs. > > I saw mention that you had done this. Do you actually allow options to be > passed to the reiserfs utils, or is it still limited to defaults. Still just defaults... I plan to do an evms-like parameters interface soonish. Anyway, implementing it shouldn't present any special problems. It is orthogonal to the way libparted and libreiserfs interface themselves. > Last > time I looked the APIs in libparted didn't provide for this. Without this > support the whole thing is rather uninteresting to us. Well, libparted is quite limited and immature, I agree. But it has ideas that EVMS doesn't have (and vice versa), so it's useful ("interesting") for us to be looking at each other's code. I think the way libparted and libreiserfs work together should be interesting to you... it only enables full reiserfs support when libreiserfs is installed. I don't think it's the Final Solution TM... I think we have a problem of how to handle multiple implementions of the same thing. (Which can be useful: for example, reconstructive vs incremental file system resizers, etc.) Anyway, I'd like you to tell me how crap the current libparted <-> libreiserfs thing is, so I can make it better ;) Andrew