On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:35:11PM -0300, Andre Luis Lopes wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 07:45:47PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I agree, and deciding one way or the other on partman will help, since > > >we can drop the other one to a low priority and out of memory. > > > > Well, I think partman rocks. Notably, a lot of people working on extra > > architectures and subarchitectures appear to be hoping that partman takes > > over, because it means that they just have to get libparted support for their > > architecture, rather than making udebs of various and sundry tools and > > supporting all their different interfaces in debconf. I think that's reason > > enough to switch to it. Furthermore, it's actually pretty spiffy. :-) > > Sorry if it's completely unrelated, but I think that if partman is going > to work fine with LVM/RAID fine, we would certainly prefer it over the > other alternatives.
So, please help in adding LVM/RAID support in libparted, and it will be supported. > We have a lvmcfg already and I would love if it worked fine with > partman. As for RAID support, it would rock even better, as we don't > have any working tool for configuring RAID yet. I don't know the partman code base, so i don't know if it is easily possible to use both libparted and an external tool with it. Maybe it is though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
