DapperInstallerVolumeManagement

Revision 5 as of 2005-11-02 23:09:50

Clear message

DapperInstallerVolumeManagement

Status

Note for Reviewers

The main implementation is already in breezy. This spec is to recollect the bits that needs to be polished/tested in Dapper. For all the rationale and cosmetic bits please see InstallerVolumeManagement (that are not up for discussion since already approved at UDU).

Implementation Plan

  • Import new upstream version from Debian that is our version plus extra bug fixing.

  • As discussed on debian-boot mailing list, patch partman-auto recipes to tag partitions that can or cannot be on lvm volumes. (http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2005/10/msg00842.html)

  • Modify partman-auto-lvm (pal from now on) to parse the new recipes tag (that as a consequence will increase portability across architecture)

XXX:Where is that tag specified? --smurf

XXX: at the same url and comment as above? -- fabbione

  • Remove size calculation hack from breezy (as discussed on debian-boot mailing list)

XXX:URL? --smurf XXX: at the same URL as above? -- fabbione

  • Enable pal (partman-auto-lvm) on ppc.
  • Test all of the above.
  • profit. Estimated working time from 3 to 8 days.

Packages Affected

  • partman-auto-lvm

  • partman-auto

  • probably more

Outstanding Issues

  • pal could not be enabled on breezy because parted upstream did not support lvm.
  • We were offering the option to use all the freespace on all devices to create lvm volumes. This option was too buggy and removed from upstream.

  • The same GUI problems as discussed in InstallerVolumeManagement, needs to be addressed.

The GUI system from RH was still buggy in the last round test and a new round test needs to be performed when upstream will release a new version publically. XXX:What about other tasks in InstallerVolumeManagement, like for instance the user interface part, which still seem to be open? Please mention the tasks from IVM which are out-of-scope here, so that people know what's going on and are not confused about the tasks' status. --smurf XXX:Addressed with the above comment -- fabbione