225769 2008-06-10 16:29 0000 sys-fs/lvm2 init-script outputs queer message with baselayout-1 2008-06-28 09:17:25 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux Unspecified unspecified x86 Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 anna.janackova@gmail.com cardoe@gentoo.org robbat2@gentoo.org anna.janackova@gmail.com 2008-06-10 16:29:59 0000 /etc/init.d/lvm start (as well as device-mapper) outputs a message completely uninformative and weird: * The lvm init-script is written for baselayout-2! * Please do not use it with baselayout-1! Reproducible: Always Expected Results: The error message should be set to something more informative, like "This init-script is meant for use with baselayout-2. Baselayout-1 starts lvm on its own, use/do this or that." jer@gentoo.org 2008-06-10 16:35:38 0000 Which version of sys-fs/lvm2? anna.janackova@gmail.com 2008-06-10 17:41:25 0000 sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.28-r2 cardoe@gentoo.org 2008-06-10 18:23:09 0000 elog "lvm volumes are no longer automatically created for" elog "baselayout-2 users. If you are using baselayout-2, be sure to" elog "run: # rc-update add lvm boot" So the instructions when you install it say only to do those steps if you're a baselayout-2 user. The instructions that you pasted say that the init script is only for baselayout-2 and not to use it with baselayout-1. Where exactly is the confusion? agk@redhat.com 2008-06-10 18:52:40 0000 I can only assist when matters involve the upstream code base - this is a pure distro one, sorry - reassigning it back. anna.janackova@gmail.com 2008-06-10 19:21:49 0000 (In reply to comment #3) > elog "lvm volumes are no longer automatically created for" > elog "baselayout-2 users. If you are using baselayout-2, be sure to" > elog "run: # rc-update add lvm boot" > > So the instructions when you install it say only to do those steps if you're a > baselayout-2 user. The instructions that you pasted say that the init script is > only for baselayout-2 and not to use it with baselayout-1. > > Where exactly is the confusion? > Are you saying that we do not need a signpost, because the information is already in the map? And asking where exactly is the confusion? ;) Where exactly is the problem that causes the inconsistency in those two messages in question (or any other)? It's really nice to have the information in one place, but some could make use of the signpost, to know where to go. And even if nobody did, we could be a bit more consistent in things we do, because we just care and/or want to do the best. And perfection, as we all know, is in details. robbat2@gentoo.org 2008-06-28 09:17:25 0000 I added another line of warning to tell users NOT to add lvm to the runlevels if they are using baselayout1.