[SM-Discuss] lvm and device-mapper

Jeremy Blosser jblosser-smgl at firinn.org
Mon Nov 10 22:49:52 EST 2008


On Nov 10, Eric Sandall [eric at sandall.us] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:18:16 -0600
> Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl at firinn.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 10, Eric Sandall [eric at sandall.us] wrote:
> > > I like this approach best. :) Otherwise I'd say #2 or #1, in that
> > > order.
> > 
> > Upstream has decided a package "device-mapper" no longer exists.  Why
> > should we create (and maintain) one?
> 
> Because I don't want the complexity of one spell providing, optionally,
> device-mapper and/or lvm. I like the core packages to be simple. :)

But we don't do what we like, we give the user what they expect from
upstream, at least as default.

> > #2 is one of the worst IMO, it's completely off track with upstream.
> 
> Sometimes upstream is stupid.

Often upstream is stupid.  We're not supposed to change things from what
they provide anyway.  We don't patch, we don't add flags, don't tweak.

> :) However, I'd go for #1 if no one likes #2. I liked #2 because it keeps
> our setup the same, users won't notice, and we cut down on downloads by
> one source (granted, both are included in one tarball).

Users will notice if they track upstream or if they're coming to us from
upstream.  Docs based on upstream will be wrong when on our distro.  Etc.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20081110/90a02b3a/attachment.bin 


More information about the SM-Discuss mailing list