Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:

> > Okay, sure. LVMs are harder. That still doesn't address your claim
> > that it would be nice to adopt someone else's LVM layout or metadata.
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> I was trying to say that as best I can tell, LVMs won't make use of
> wedges. i.e. LVMs won't be just another partitoin type; they will be an
> entirely different beast.

I'll buy that. Which means, in general, that we shouldn't even think
about discussing LVM-related issues now, lest we double the depth of
this rathole.

> As for being binary-compatable with someone else's LVM, it permits us to
> interoperate with a lot more OSs. Say for dual-booting. Also there are
> projects, like GFS, that have an assosciated LVM format. Being able to
> play in that arena seems interesting to me.

There are lots of LVMs. When we get to discussing this, in another
thread, I will claim that the virtues of compatibility aren't worth
the trouble that they will bring.

        - Nathan