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