[parted-devel] Re: Patch against SVN (1.8.0rc2): number two

[Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray]

> Given the number of huge datacenter situations that have been reported
> to me that have large /proc "info" files, I feel better leaving it at
> 16KB where it's been working fine for years in RHEL and Fedora Core than
> to reduce it to 1KB.

Ok. Point taken. After all it is not a good idea to fix something
which is not broken. :-)

>> One may look at volume groups as the equivalent of a block
>> device (eg., /dev/hdb) on a non-LVM set-up. Being able to 'print' out
>> the whole list of logical volumes on a volume group and operate on it,
>> in the same way we print out a disk's (eg., /dev/hdb) disklabel and
>> operate on it, might be very useful. What do you think?

> But it's not the same as a block device.  I like what you are proposing
> here, but the way LVM currently works doesn't lead to this thought process.
>
> The correct way to implement something like this is to improve the LVM
> tools by adding a userspace library that we, in parted, can call rather
> than adding our own LVM code.  I would rather do that than add a hack to
> do it this way in parted, but the LVM tools are still the way they have
> always been.

Maybe we can develop a complete userspace LVM library (something more
mature than a hack) as part of libparted, which parted and possibly
the LVM tools can use too. That way libparted will become a more
complete API. Since the LVM tools are not changing by themselves,
maybe this way we can intiate some change. Or would you like the
library (say liblvm) to be a part of the LVM suite? Would Leslie like
to comment?

Happ hacking,
Debarshi

-- 
"India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country,
but rather a developed nation in an advanced state of decay."
--Shashi Tharoor