[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc



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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]