| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2012-03-13 8:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> You want it simple? Tha'ts fine, it is possible. It's just that it |
| 5 |
>> will not solve the general problem, just a very specific subset of it. |
| 6 |
>> Just as mdev is doing; Walt just posted an email explaining that if |
| 7 |
>> you use GNOME, KDE, XFCE, or LVM2, mdev is not for you. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Very interesting thread guys, and thanks for keeping it relatively civil |
| 11 |
> despite the passion behind the objections being raised... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I just wanted to point out one thing (and ask a question about it) to anyone |
| 14 |
> who argues that servers don't need this - if LVM2 really does eliminate the |
| 15 |
> possibility of using mdev for fundamental reasons (as opposed to arbitrary |
| 16 |
> decisions), that rules out a *lot* of server installations. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So, that is my question... what is it about LVM2 that *requires* udev? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Or asked another way - |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Why is LVM2 incapable od using mdev? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The presumption is that lvm's dependent binaries would be found |
| 25 |
somewhere under a mount point other than / (such as /usr), which gives |
| 26 |
you a chicken-and-egg problem if mounting that mount point requires |
| 27 |
lvm. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
:wq |
Archives