On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:23:16PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> I asked the question because Alasdair mentioned that the current
> implementation doesn't use the existing LVM framework and he would prefer
> that, instead of having the functionality as a whole included in Grub, it
> relies on the LVM infrastructure that is maintained by the LVM developers.
> And as a result would be a much more complete (and
> maintained) implementation than is currently offered.
>
> To me it looks like it could just compile and link against the LVM API.
> That would certainly provide for a much better implementation than the
> current as it would be maintained by the LVM developers directly.
I agree that it potentially can be a great benefit; but it could also be a
problem. Please could you let us know about:
- Does the LVM framework provide a practical means of linking it
into GRUB (not just the user part, also the freestanding code)?
- Is its license compatible with the GPL (version 3)?
- Will it increase the size of our lvm.mod? Size is critical here, because
it's highly desireable that lvm.mod fits in core.img which fits in
the post-mbr region.
Thanks
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
