Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:02:30 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GELI devices produced with 9.0+ fail when mounted on 8.2, etc? Message-ID: <CAGH67wTMm6qtygzM=KSTMjCmMUoDSP3wDQS905R-FWHURS8T8g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20111019201317.GC1982@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <924643A0-0798-4FAC-8F82-4AFBC56DC8D7@gmail.com> <CAGMYy3tX=Xr1k%2B=7FqV5=Ddooopodtmv1hG=zy5G2Ye5KCuO_Q@mail.gmail.com> <7EC93C28-6405-443F-92C6-0291F8D88995@gmail.com> <CAGMYy3veJQ-pBg1BuAZyH3rvMxEaFQOYPTJYgWPteohw-HE%2BuA@mail.gmail.com> <EDE63E3A-A2BF-4422-B0F5-8DB4AFE5B573@gmail.com> <20111017132945.GG1679@garage.freebsd.pl> <CAGH67wRSVtsophbJ4cF5Y2x=5a9HHB5_SE6HqvwwyjyVtUd9oA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGH67wSbF7xazeX7GbHsghDCH2qiLd1ciyOBr_j=hfBW8kPxcw@mail.gmail.com> <20111019161833.GB1982@garage.freebsd.pl> <CAGH67wS3TVJe07pURFw7yHTzw3bR0h_vEUj9LNLFe_de%2BzRRFg@mail.gmail.com> <20111019201317.GC1982@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> wrote: ... > Manual page is in the same place as source code, so it doesn't really > matter if we merge geli.8 or geom_eli.c. I was planing to put this into > manual page as well, but I think that having it only in the manual page > should be enough indeed. Ok. >> Also, I like the thought of having a separate subcommand -- version -- >> for displaying the version output of a geli image. It seems like: >> >> geli upgrade md0 > > You meant 'version' here, right? Actually, I meant upgrade. Having to explicitly call out the version instead of implying the version that one needs to upgrade to just seems unnecessary / less intuitive. >> should just upgrade md0 to the latest supported metadata format >> instead of printing out the metadata version, as the implied metadata >> version should be the latest one by default. > > Well, as I said, upgrading is often not possible, as it would require > rewrite of all the data, as the code assumes for example that if this is > version X, IV should be calculated this way and if it Y some other way, > etc. Yeah.. and you'll have to build a valid version matrix, and block off certain upgrade paths, etc. Having worked with complicated packaging systems, I understand your concerns :). Thanks! -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wTMm6qtygzM=KSTMjCmMUoDSP3wDQS905R-FWHURS8T8g>