>>>>> On Mon, 26 May 2014 12:15:45 +0200, Thomas Neumann >>>>> <blacky+...@fluffbunny.de> said:
> but also the underlying Linux::LVM is pretty seriously > broken. (Roland's patch does work, but I'm not sure if it's really the > 'correct' fix.) IMO, we should first try to fix the problems in this Perl library. > @Thomas L.: What do you think about introducing something like the > USE_SETUP_STORAGE variable again? This way it would be possible to provide the > 'working-but-broken-LVM' and an 'experimental' version of setup-storage. If a > client type doesn't need LVM, then stay with the old s-s and avoid possible > breakage, if LVM is required then it's broken anyway and it does not really > matter to possibly add an additional bug. I prefer to fix things in setup-storage and not start a fork of it. > Important stuff that needs to be fixed: > - setup-storage must properly recognize and wipe existing LVM-volumes There seems to be some improvement in LVM itself since 2.02.105. Have a look at #750212. > - either Linux::LVM or setup-storage must be aware of the changes in 2.02.85 > and 2.02.95(?) and properly handle them Linux::LVM should handle this. setup-storage is not responsible of fixing things that are handled by another library. > Important feature requests: > - setup-storage should be able to configure btrfs volumes (at least root > volumes, subvolumes would be nice too) I also like this idea. Let's see if we can include something useful into setup-storage until november, before the Jessie freeze. -- regards Thomas