Re: Device-mapper submission for 2.4

Paul Jakma
2003-12-10T15:56:12Z

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> Some form of backward compatibility from 2.6 would seem a much more
> sensible thing to fight for. Foisting forward comaptibility on an
> older release seems like a bad road to go down.

I dont really care, but some kind of (long-term, ie lifetime of
either 2.4 or 2.6) compatibility is needed.

LVM1 kernel support was recently removed from 2.6.0, so it would have
to be added back in.

One argument for adding forward compatibility in 2.4 is that it will
/force/ people to move to DM before going to 2.6, which might be a
good thing as, AIUI, LVM1 has problems.

Its a choice between:

- 2.6 backwards compatibility, adding back in LVM1 support, LVM1
users will then quite possibly continue to use the problematical LVM1
interfaces even after migrating to 2.6.

- 2.4 forwards compatibility, add DM support - which appears (IMVU)
to drop in cleanly alongside MD - and hence 2.6 can remain 'clean'.

I dont know, but it would be nice to have /something/ and to have it
in stock kernel rather than /hope/ to have upstreams include the
required backward or forward compatibility.

> M.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
But it does move!
-- Galileo Galilei