[linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc
Michael Tokarev
mjt at tls.msk.ru
Mon Aug 13 19:44:02 UTC 2001
Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>
[]
> In the 'experimental' branch each tool has been converted into a
> function and they have all been linked into a single 'lvm'
> binary. This binary takes lvm commands from standard input
> and processes them. Or it can be invoked with argv[0] set to
> the name of an existing tool (eg 'ln lvm pvcreate') and then it
> will behave as that tool. There are no plans to change existing
> command line arguments etc. However, in the interests of
> achieving consistency between the tools and making it easy to
> handle their output reliably, there are likely to be minor
> changes to the output formats, error codes, signal-handling etc.
Wow, great! No more tons of tiny executables! Wow! Looks
very good. Just like `cvs' now -- "cvs co", "cvs add" etc...
Well, ok, but one little question/suggestion: why not have
*some* tools instead of one (a step back? no): pvm for physycal
volumes, lvg for volume groups and lvm for logical volumes?
This seems to be logical...
Anyway, this is exactly a direction I always wanted to ask and/or
point to, but I remember some words somewhere on Sistina? Or
old LVM homepage (where it was?) ? that such mergeing will not
happen because of something. (It may be even lvm FAQ or HOWTO).
Unfortunately, I don't remember reasons behind that.
Regards,
Michael.
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list