On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 17:03 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:17, Jeff Vian wrote: > > > The uninitiated will not likely be moving drives between machines. They > > would do an install on already existing drives and as such the Fedora > > install/labeling scheme works well. > > So the idea is to stay uninitiated forever? > No, they move to the next category, as expected. > > The conflicts occur when previously > > labeled drives are mixed in a machine as mentioned above. > > Note that the prior scheme of using partition names did not > have any problems unless you moved them either and then they > were predictable according to drive positions. With this > scheme the problem depends on the disk contents that you aren't > likely to know ahead of time. > You can easily fall back to that method, and I am sure many of us do when we encounter this problem. I surely do. > > Some OSes write a PVID on the physical device that is unique (similar to > > the way identifiers on LVM logical volumes and volume groups are > > unique). This may be a better way since a unique identifier of this > > sort (physical volume plus logical volume/partition) is guaranteed to > > not conflict the way the current labels do. > > If someone is going to re-think this, they should also come up > with a scheme that works when you do a backup and restore to > a different machine. There are so many things you have to fix > by hand (grub, fstab, the NIC hardware addresses) when you > copy a working machine that I'd be surprised if anyone is rolling > them out in any volume. > agreed. > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx > > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
