8:24 a.m.
Upgrading from fc6 to T4, fstab:
LABEL=/ / ext3
defaults 1 1
LABEL=/boot /boot ext3
defaults 1 2
devpts /dev/pts devpts
gid=5,mode=620 0 0
tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs
defaults 0 0
proc /proc proc
defaults 0 0
sysfs /sys sysfs
defaults 0 0
LABEL=WIN /win vfat
defaults 0 0
LABEL=Swap-sda3 swap swap
defaults 0 0
/dev/video-vol/video /video ext3
defaults 1 2
/dev/video-vol/swap swap swap
defaults 0 0
The upgrade died with a message about the /dev/video-vol/*
entries. Couldn't find how to LABEL lvm partitions, so just
deleted them from fstab, then installed.
After install, I added the lvm partitions back into fstab,
just as above. That works fine.
I couldn't find anything about this in bz, and I'm not sure
how to report it, or even if it is a bug.
sean
8:31 a.m.
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:24:08AM -0400, sean wrote:
The upgrade died with a message about the /dev/video-vol/*
entries. Couldn't find how to LABEL lvm partitions, so just
deleted them from fstab, then installed.
Since LVs are already "named" there is usually no reason to label the
filesystems on top of them.
Labels are a filesystem attribue, so it matters not whether the
filesystem/swap is in a partition directly, or on a LVM logical
volume. You label the same way (assuming you are using Ext2/Ext3
filesystem):
e2label /dev/video-vol/video VIDEO
mkswap -L SWAP /dev/video-vol/swap
8:34 a.m.
Hi.
On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:31:12 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Since LVs are already "named" there is usually no reason to
label the
filesystems on top of them.
Yes, there is. The idea of file system labels is that you do not have
to know (or care) where exactly the filesystem is located.
A LV path is just a device name, too. You may choose the name of the
device name, which is more than can be said for "normal" block device
names, but it is still just a device name.
8:54 a.m.
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:31:12 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Since LVs are already "named" there is usually no reason to label the
> filesystems on top of them.
Yes, there is. The idea of file system labels is that you do not have
to know (or care) where exactly the filesystem is located.
A LV path is just a device name, too. You may choose the name of the
device name, which is more than can be said for "normal" block device
names, but it is still just a device name.
But my real point, is why does install insist on a LABEL?
The /dev naming convention works fine with the new kernel.
Also, system-config-lvm has no option to provide a LABEL.
sean
9:31 a.m.
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:54:17AM -0400, sean wrote:
But my real point, is why does install insist on a LABEL?
The /dev naming convention works fine with the new kernel.
LABELs never change unexpectedly. /dev names can change unexpectedly,
although with LVM this is less likely than without.
Also, system-config-lvm has no option to provide a LABEL.
Neither does fdisk. Does system-config-lvm have an option to format a
filesystem?
9:48 a.m.
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:54:17AM -0400, sean wrote:
> But my real point, is why does install insist on a LABEL?
> The /dev naming convention works fine with the new kernel.
LABELs never change unexpectedly. /dev names can change unexpectedly,
although with LVM this is less likely than without.
> Also, system-config-lvm has no option to provide a LABEL.
Neither does fdisk. Does system-config-lvm have an option to format a
filesystem?
Maybe, but that wouldn't help with an existing partition. If
we're looking to make upgrading easy, the user shouldn't
have to reformat a partition.
sean
10:36 a.m.
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:48:41AM -0400, sean wrote:
Maybe, but that wouldn't help with an existing partition. If
we're looking to make upgrading easy, the user shouldn't
have to reformat a partition.
My point was that system-config-lvm doesn't have an option to LABEL a
filesystem, because it doesn't operate on filesystems. It operates on
block devices. The block devices could contain anything that may or
may not support LABELs. They could be encrypted, for example.
10:14 a.m.
Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:54:17AM -0400, sean wrote:
> But my real point, is why does install insist on a LABEL?
> The /dev naming convention works fine with the new kernel.
LABELs never change unexpectedly. /dev names can change unexpectedly,
although with LVM this is less likely than without.
Yeah, but why abort the upgrade? Give a message maybe, but
why abort when it'll still work.
This is new in f7 because it requires the shift from hdx to
sdx. But why abort for lvm /dev naming, which still works,
even if LABELs are "better".
sean
3:30 p.m.
On Fr Mai 25 2007, Chuck Anderson wrote:
LABELs never change unexpectedly. /dev names can change
unexpectedly,
although with LVM this is less likely than without.
What happens when I plug into my Fedora machine the HD of another Fedora
machine to copy/backup/recover some files? Then there are multiple similiar
labels. So imho the default labels should be somehow bound to the host, e.g.
to $HOSTNAME-$MOUNTPOINT
And what happens when one plugs in a usb stick with a filesystem labeled "/"?
Regards,
Till
8:35 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sean" <seandarcy2(a)gmail.com>
To: <fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:24 AM
Subject: t4 upgrade from fc6: fails on lvm fstab naming
Upgrading from fc6 to T4, fstab:
Try upgrading to FC7RC2 and see what results you get from that, as it is/was
available last night/this morning.
Mike
8:48 a.m.
Mike Chambers wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "sean"
<seandarcy2(a)gmail.com>
To: <fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:24 AM
Subject: t4 upgrade from fc6: fails on lvm fstab naming
> Upgrading from fc6 to T4, fstab:
Try upgrading to FC7RC2 and see what results you get from that, as it
is/was available last night/this morning.
Mike
Well, my old fc6, is now T4, but I'll try T4 -> RC2.
sean
6:33 p.m.
New subject: t4 upgrade from fc6: fails on lvm fstab naming (rc2 works)
sean wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sean" <seandarcy2(a)gmail.com>
> To: <fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 8:24 AM
> Subject: t4 upgrade from fc6: fails on lvm fstab naming
>
>
>> Upgrading from fc6 to T4, fstab:
>
> Try upgrading to FC7RC2 and see what results you get from that, as it
> is/was available last night/this morning.
>
> Mike
Well, my old fc6, is now T4, but I'll try T4 -> RC2.
sean
upgraded t4 -> rc2. No problem. The install did not balk
at the lvm /dev partitions.
sean
6204
days inactive
6204
days old
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chuck Anderson -
Mike Chambers -
Ralf Ertzinger -
sean darcy -
Till Maas