> [...] wouldn't it make more sense to keep consistent and munge the return from parted [...]
> rather than changing every other component?
Possibly; that was actually the first option evaluated;
e.g., a sed in partman-base, or to change parted.
However, either way, it affects things that are not related at all to multipath.
(i.e., everything that reads from parted_server/libparted somehow)
I tried to keep the changes contained in multipath stuff, mainly for 2 reasons:
1) they're not related/required to non-multipath stuff at all.
2) it's late to ask for patching general stuff.
And it turned out that 'every other component' were actually just 3,
which, given the 2 reasons above, made me consider this approach.
Otherwise, I'd have suggested something more aligned w/ a simpler change.
@adconrad
> [...] wouldn't it make more sense to keep consistent and munge the return from parted [...]
> rather than changing every other component?
Possibly; that was actually the first option evaluated;
e.g., a sed in partman-base, or to change parted.
However, either way, it affects things that are not related at all to multipath. server/ libparted somehow)
(i.e., everything that reads from parted_
I tried to keep the changes contained in multipath stuff, mainly for 2 reasons:
1) they're not related/required to non-multipath stuff at all.
2) it's late to ask for patching general stuff.
And it turned out that 'every other component' were actually just 3,
which, given the 2 reasons above, made me consider this approach.
Otherwise, I'd have suggested something more aligned w/ a simpler change.