Bug 651069

Summary:	[RFE] python bindings for liblvm/lvm2app
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	David Lehman <dlehman>
Component:	lvm2	Assignee:	LVM and device-mapper development team <lvm-team>
Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	agk, bmarzins, bmr, dwysocha, heinzm, jonathan, lvm-team, mbroz, msnitzer, prajnoha, prockai
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2010-12-14 08:58:43 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	623811

Description David Lehman 2010-11-08 18:51:05 UTC

Description of problem:
Python bindings for liblvm would be of great use to anaconda. It would allow us to remove several unreliable calculations of things like available space in not-yet-created VGs and pe_start. Since anaconda is written in python, a C header file is not particularly useful.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
lvm2-2.02.70-1

Comment 1 Petr Rockai 2010-12-13 16:36:47 UTC

Surely python has some sort of FFI? Why can't you simply call the C functions from python? And, if there was to be a python binding to LVM, presumably it would live in a separate package anyway (I don't think it is a good idea for LVM to build-depend on python...).

Comment 2 David Lehman 2010-12-13 16:46:34 UTC

Anaconda using an FFI to interface/wrap liblvm puts us in the position of maintaining a relatively low-level interface to your library, which makes no sense. We don't have the extra cycles to maintain an lvm-specific library. For liblvm to be of use for anaconda it needs to provide a reasonably stable python interface. If the lvm team wants to use an FFI to generate this, fine.

Comment 3 Petr Rockai 2010-12-14 08:58:43 UTC

Well, we don't have those extra cycles either. As long as it's easier for you to call command line tools than it is to call C, I guess you should stick with the former. We can revisit this when we have some extra manpower on liblvm/lvm2app. Maybe if this is still valid in six months from now, you can try reopening and we'll see if any free cycles on the lvm side have materialised by then (but I wouldn't set my hopes too high on that).