Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] lvm and device-mapper

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] lvm and device-mapper
  • Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:49:52 -0600

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.

Attachment: pgpgqKC9Oo3d8.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page