[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:09:42 -0200 |
Dan Knapp wrote:
> The more templatized specifications may or may not be. Distribution
> installers can always write a sequence of commands to be executed by the
> partitioning software of their choice, and are much more likely to be able
> to capture the needs of a variety of systems in an automated way than a
> simple file with parameters such as "fill rest of disk" and "allocate 128M
> from the end as swap" is. There's certainly a use for "flat mirroring" -
> for example, when you buy 20 or 200 machines at the same time, you could
> set up the partition table then transfer the filesystems over the network.
> Of course, just because they're sold as the same model doesn't mean all their
> components are identical... Are installers really that bad that it's
> preferable to forgo them, though?
I don't think so. I think installers are good, and getting better ;-)
You can set up dhcp + netboot (right name?) + nfs, and automagically
install an entire network of machines...
I know we can do this with MI, anyway, and I think kick start (red hat)
can to.
> However, it certainly would be possible to find some semantics that would
> allow one to omit the details that are going to be changed between
> restorations (on the principle of minimizing the number of parsers in a given
> program, sure, no reason not to make the backups and the configuration files
> use the same format) and specify how they are to be calculated.
I'm not sure I like the idea of requiring libparted to link against
libxml... (or whatever). It's too big already for many rescue/boot
disks!
I don't think backups need to be human-editable, although human
readable might be nice. I think something like
fprintf (stream,
"id-%d: start-%l end-%l c-%d h-%d s-%d type-%d\n",
num, start, end, c, h, s, type);
would suffice.
I don't think other programs would/should ever need to parse these.
> > I think having configuration files to store such setups is a good
> > idea, but it's different to backing up partition tables (which is
> > also useful)
>
> I would even say that those configuration files would be redundant.
> Scripting suffices and is probably more versatile.
I think configuration files (which could be generated by GUIs) could
be a lot easier. Which isn't to say we shouldn't allow scripting.
Andrew Clausen
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Andrew Clausen, 2001/02/01
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Dan Knapp, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Andrew Clausen, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Dan Knapp, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Ben Collins, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Andrew Clausen, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre, Dan Knapp, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre,
Andrew Clausen <=
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre, Dan Knapp, 2001/02/02
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre, Andrew Clausen, 2001/02/03
- Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre1, Dan Knapp, 2001/02/02