Re: does final criteria #8 mean lvm-on-raid must be available?

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

 



On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 08:49 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I tried to make a mirrored /boot partition, and then a second mirrored
> partition with an LVM volume group on top of that (including / and /home
> partitions). The current UI doesn't offer this, although it was easy to do
> in the old one.
> 
> I'm not exactly excited about holding things up further, but does this need
> an exception to final release criterion #8:
> 
>   "The installer must be able to create and install to any workable
>    partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer
>    configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of
>    the above."
> 
> ?
> 
> It seems like it does, but I think the wording is ambiguous. (What is
> workable? What does "offered" apply to?)
> 
> Brian Lane notes that there's not enough time to re-add this feature:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=888863
> 
> 
> Also, this is further complicated because LVM now has its own mirroring and
> RAID features which could be used instead of the software raid (I think this
> is what RHEL 6.3+ docs now recommend, in fact, but I'm not sure -- I'll
> definitely defer to the storage experts on this).

Let's see...I'd say that what the criterion really means - what it was
written for - is 'you should be able to successfully create any sane
layout the custom partitioning mode will let you create'. That's what
'offered' is about (at the time, btrfs support was available but only
via a sekrit command line parameter, hence 'offered in a default
installer configuration'). So I'd say that if custom part actually
doesn't allow you to do what you're trying to do, that's okay. If it
tries to do it, but blows up when you try, that would be a blocker
candidate.

The criterion wasn't really written to cover the case we're in now,
where the installer is being rewritten and bits of functionality are
being lost; it's more appropriate to a 'steady state' installer whose
capabilities are fairly well defined.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux