Re: [PATCH] Remove LVM from 2.5 (resend)

[Michael Clark]

On 10/03/02 23:07, Shawn wrote:
> On 10/03, Michael Clark said something like:
> 
>>On 10/03/02 20:38, Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 06:50, Michael Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>... and you don't need EVMS for that.
>>>>
>>>>But EVMS would be an excellent substitute in the mean time.
>>>>
>>>>Better to having something excellent now than something perfect but
>>>>too late.
>>>
> 
> This statement is misleading; in no way is EVMS intended as an
> interim solution to a problem addressed easier in other ways. It's
> a fundamental change which happens to address certain critical issues
> and also adds functionality whiz-bangs.

Yes, i agree. It's not the original intention of EVMS to be used
as a unified interface to all linux block devices. Although it
could be used in that way if desired by any individual user -
to provide a solution to the consistent block device naming issue.

>>>You can see who around here has maintained kernel code and who hasnt.
>>>You don't want a substitute in the mean time, because then you have to
>>>get rid of it
>>
>>Like LVM ;)
> 
> 
> Not quite...

Well, existing LVM does appear to be a subsitute for a better solution
(dm or EVMS) for which it's time has come to be removed.

~mc