anacron
Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy
nigde at mitechki.net
Thu Nov 11 18:34:45 CST 2004
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 11:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:58:27PM -0500, Dmitriy Kropivnitskiy wrote:
>
> > Listen to yourself, what you are saying is anacron is not needed in Base
> > because it is only for desktops, but LVM is OK in Base because it is
> > only for servers.
>
> Read the explanations of the seed lists on
> http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/SeedManagement, and this should make more
> sense.
>
OK, lets do the devil's advocate dance :) Here is an excerpt from the
wiki page you mentioned:
Packages in base should be:
* absolutely stable, standard tools that we think will be
around forever and we are prepared to maintain even if
the whole world moves on
* useful diagnostic tools that one can use to get the
system and network up and running, and are valuable to
have "always there" in case of need
* widely applicable (in the Greatest Common Factor sense,
not Lowest Common Denominator) to every installation,
desktop or server
1. LVM is by no means a standard tool, not one major distribution
partitions a system with LVM by default and out of several big install
bases I have seen nobody used it (people in need of large quantities of
dynamic storage generally prefer hardware based solutions). These things
considered I would not call LVM stable. Also, the "whole world" as
represented by kernel developers seems to be moving towards EVMS even as
we speak :)
2. Unless a system is pre-partitioned using LVM there is no reason for
it to be "always there in case of need".
3. LVM can hardly be called "widely applicable" for a desktop system,
and for that matter for a server system (see argument #1)
But than again it is just me :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20041111/25cc2fed/attachment.html
More information about the ubuntu-devel
mailing list