On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 09:54:14PM -0800, Shyamal Prasad wrote: > > "Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sven> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:21:35PM -0800, Shyamal Prasad > Sven> wrote: > > >> Okay. I suppose this (powermac lvm for d-i) might not happen > >> by the time Sarge releases. I'd be happy to take a look at it, > >> but I might not have the skills and/or time.... > > Sven> No, the code is trivial (one small parted change, and one > Sven> upload of parted to move into sarge), what needs doing is > Sven> discussing this with other distros which run on powermac and > Sven> lvm upstream. > > Hmmm...I'm still trying to understand what the consensus (solution) > should be. Please correct me where/if I'm wrong below, : > > 1) PowerMac does not currently have Partition types for Linux. Today > we are just using an Apple defined type (Apple_UNIX_SVR2) which is > "safe".
What exactly do you mean by safe ? > 2) LVM tools can't tell which partitions contain LVM volumes because > there is no standard partition type for them. It is not sufficient to > look at an Apple_UNIX_SVR2 partition and determine if it contains > physical volumes (yes? why?). > > 3) A proposal (from Sven, for example) is to use 'Linux LVM' as a > partition type on PowerMac systems. > > 4) The parition *name* will not have any real effect on this setup. It > is far too easy for users to change names. > > 5) The consensus on this paritition type will have to involve upstream > lvm and then d-i and partman can be fixed in Debian to use this > type. If upstream lvm agrees, then all Distro's will end up using > 'Linux LVM' as the type and there will be no compatibility problems in > the future. Yes, we should do the same for 'Linux RAID' (altough i would use an underscore in both cases). > 6) It seems that a single 'Linux LVM' type is enough. Is there not a > need to tell between LVM1 and LVM2 partitions? There must still be a > lot of 2.4.x users out there.... I think not, but then i am no expert. x86 use a single flag. > I'm willing to do any grunt work to get this consensus (with any > corrections for my ignorance, I'm presuming this really is grunt > work), but I'm not even sure where to start. I don't even know who LVM > upstream really is (the HOTWO at tldp is from Redhat, are they the LVM > upstream). Or did Michael Schmitz already offer to drive this? Maybe start with the lvm-tools debian maintainers ? > >> Does the Sarge ppc installation manual needs an update for the > > Sven> As i understand manual modifications are too late anyway, > Sven> but then it would be easier to fix the issue. > > Since Frans pointed out that this is actually possible I will probably > write an bug and propose a patch in any case. Cool, but i would rather have it fixed. > Cheers! > Shyamal (who never suspected powerpc would be all this fun ;-) Hehe. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
