#565676 lvm2: initrd script could be extended beyond what it currently supports.

Package:
lvm2
Source:
lvm2
Description:
Linux Logical Volume Manager
Submitter:
Date:
2015-08-13 15:09:16 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#565676#5
Date:
2010-01-17 21:27:33 UTC
From:
To:
I believe that a lot can be done to extend the usefulness of the
local-top/lvm2 script.  Currently the script supports a number of
formats for root and swap filesystem names, but it's vary limited.

fe[0-9]*
/dev/root
/dev/mapper/#\(.*\)\([^-]\)-[^-].*#

This leaves UUID file systems and a whole lot more.  I suggest that
a handful of kernel command line parameters are added.  There is
specifying the vg of the root and swap partitions and perhaps it
should just allow the mounting of any number of lvms, including "".

Would there be any objection to carrying out this task and attaching
the new script to this bug?

There is also the version of lvm to use, I feel the user should be
able to force this with a nolvm2 and/or a uselvm1.

P.S.
The script provided by this package and the one provided by
initramfs-tools(lvm) are vary similar, perhaps a join and
removing lvm2 from this package and having the initramfs-tools
pkg have one script that covers both.

#565676#10
Date:
2010-01-17 23:15:58 UTC
From:
To:
Nothing of this is detectable without enabled anything.
filesystem and the resume image if necessary, nothing else.

You are free to write as much patches as you want.

There is only lvm2 userspace left. lvm1 vgs are read by them.

There is no lvm script provided by initramfs-tools, at least not in
anything newer then Lenny.

Please note that every development is done on unstable/Sid. Please
gather your information with this distribution.

BAstian

#565676#15
Date:
2010-06-24 13:21:08 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Martin.

Are those issues the same (which I guess)? Can I merge them?

Why does it affect mdadm?



Cheers,
Chris.

#565676#20
Date:
2010-09-26 13:06:03 UTC
From:
To:
merge 565676 566965
stop

Hi.

It seems those two bugs are identical. Please unmerge if you thing
they're not.

May I suggest to continue discussion at #566965.


Cheers,
Chris.