* Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?
[not found] <8CNXF-47r-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
@ 2007-07-03 12:54 ` Bodo Eggert
2007-07-03 13:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Bodo Eggert @ 2007-07-03 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day, Linux Kernel Mailing List
Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> just built a new kernel and didn't notice that support for LVM
> wasn't selected by default for x86. given what i thought was fairly
> widespread use of LVM2, wouldn't it make sense to have this option as
> part of the default config?
If you don't know about LVM, you don't need it. Do you?
--
It's redundant! It's redundant!
Friß, Spammer: er0q@Cqd.7eggert.dyndns.org rfgnH@Ubk.Gv.7eggert.dyndns.org
Vmvwh@trxjBn.7eggert.dyndns.org sMezxCpya7@ro.7eggert.dyndns.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?
2007-07-03 12:54 ` shouldn't LVM support be selected by default? Bodo Eggert
@ 2007-07-03 13:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-07-06 15:53 ` Alasdair G Kergon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-07-03 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bodo Eggert; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > just built a new kernel and didn't notice that support for LVM
> > wasn't selected by default for x86. given what i thought was fairly
> > widespread use of LVM2, wouldn't it make sense to have this option as
> > part of the default config?
>
> If you don't know about LVM, you don't need it. Do you?
well, ok, i can go with that. thanks.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?
2007-07-03 13:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2007-07-06 15:53 ` Alasdair G Kergon
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alasdair G Kergon @ 2007-07-06 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: Bodo Eggert, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:13:54AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > If you don't know about LVM, you don't need it. Do you?
> well, ok, i can go with that. thanks.
But we should probably drop EXPERIMENTAL now from more of the targets.
Alasdair
--
agk@redhat.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* shouldn't LVM support be selected by default?
@ 2007-07-03 10:32 Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2007-07-03 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List
just built a new kernel and didn't notice that support for LVM
wasn't selected by default for x86. given what i thought was fairly
widespread use of LVM2, wouldn't it make sense to have this option as
part of the default config?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-06 15:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <8CNXF-47r-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
2007-07-03 12:54 ` shouldn't LVM support be selected by default? Bodo Eggert
2007-07-03 13:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-07-06 15:53 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2007-07-03 10:32 Robert P. J. Day
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®