Bug 225769 - sys-fs/lvm2 init-script outputs queer message with baselayout-1
|
Bug#:
225769
|
Product: Gentoo Linux
|
Version: unspecified
|
Platform: x86
|
|
OS/Version: Linux
|
Status: RESOLVED
|
Severity: normal
|
Priority: P2
|
|
Resolution: FIXED
|
Assigned To: cardoe@gentoo.org
|
Reported By: anna.janackova@gmail.com
|
|
Component: Unspecified
|
|
|
URL:
|
|
Summary: sys-fs/lvm2 init-script outputs queer message with baselayout-1
|
|
Keywords:
|
|
Status Whiteboard:
|
|
Opened: 2008-06-10 16:29 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."
Which version of sys-fs/lvm2?
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?
I can only assist when matters involve the upstream code base - this is a pure
distro one, sorry - reassigning it back.
(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.
I added another line of warning to tell users NOT to add lvm to the runlevels
if they are using baselayout1.
