Hi all: El Sábado, 17 de Diciembre de 2005 16:09, Roger Leigh escribió: > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 12:41:17PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: [...] > > Please could you clarify? What *are* you speaking about. I'm > referring to the fact that when I create or change an LVM LV, I have > to manually correct the permissions (on both static and udev managed > systems).
It's even worse. There is, of course a problem in the fact that all disk devices are created root:disk 0660 *except* those managed through LVM. I migth accept someone having concerns with these default perms/ownership (while it has been already stated that nobody will belong to group "disk" by default), but I can't accept the vast majority of the (related) packages accepting this (maybe unwritten) policy except one. The "less surprising path" should rule here. I'd say that if Bastian has concerns with this he should try to change the defaults (talking to other related package owners) for _all_ concerned packages (so, for instance, all devices would be created root:root 0600, the disk group deleted and all packages which will break changed accordingly) *or* accept the voice of the majority (and change their packages so they default to device creation root:disk 0660, or any other default that would arise) *or* (this would the the worst option by far) resign as maintainer for those packages, since (as is a Debian package maintainer must) he can't/won't manage for his packages to smoothly integrate within the distribution. But I said it is worse than that. It is worse because you have an /etc/default/lvm-common file where it is explictly stated that you can change device perms/ownership to whatever you need while you can't (and you won't be able to use underscores on the device names, but that's another story). Hence a given expectation is created that it won't be supported. > >> What if the user isn't using udev? For the most part, it is not a "what if" situation. Sarge doesn't use udev by default but static /dev/ so most users will by using /dev. And Sarge uses static /dev for a reason. It is terribly unwise asking for using udev in Sarge "just" for being able to cleanly integrate LVM on a system that neither expects udev nor tells the sysadmin it should use it (I don't remember udev being mentioned neither as a dependency nor as a suggestion on LVM packages). What I *do* remember is that lvm2 package explicitly states that "...LVM2 is backwards-compatible with LVM1 (lvm10), and requires Linux kernel 2.4 or later". Of course LVM2 is *not* backwards compatible in Sarge since an upgrade from LVM1 to LVM2 will break things on Sarge due to its incompatible volume ownership/perms.
