Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-04 Thread Marcus Better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Jonas Meurer wrote: the problem is that loads of possible setups are possible, all introducing different required initscript order. either another initscript needs to be invoked before, or after, or between the cryptdisks-early and cryptdisks

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-04 Thread C. Gatzemeier
Am Fri, 4 Jun 2010 02:49:32 +0200 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen p...@hungry.com: It is possible event baset boot sequencing might make it easier to change the ordering, but also there the maintainer of a package need to decide on some ordering. The defined order in

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-04 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[C. Gatzemeier] Am Fri, 4 Jun 2010 02:49:32 +0200 schrieb Petter Reinholdtsen p...@hungry.com: It is possible event baset boot sequencing might make it easier to change the ordering, but also there the maintainer of a package need to decide on some ordering. The defined order in

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-04 Thread Marcus Better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 C. Gatzemeier wrote: The defined order in /etc/init/cryptdisks-udev.conf is simply start on block-device-added ID_FS_USAGE=crypto. Good, how does the next step work? For example, after cryptsetup ran, we found an LVM volume and must now run lvm.

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-04 Thread Steve Langasek
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 03:08:45PM +0200, Marcus Better wrote: C. Gatzemeier wrote: The defined order in /etc/init/cryptdisks-udev.conf is simply start on block-device-added ID_FS_USAGE=crypto. Good, how does the next step work? For example, after cryptsetup ran, we found an LVM volume

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-04 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
Hi. I guess it will take some time until Debian has switched to some event-driven init-system, right? Especially as there seem to be multiple systems for this ;) On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 02:49 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Those wanting another ordering can edit the init.d scripts directly

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-03 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Jonas Meurer] to make it short: current dependency based boot system doesn't provide a solution to this complex issue in my eyes. so i'm hereby asking for advice how do adress these issues. should i simply tag the bugs as wontfix, describing that a solution is impossible? maybe i could

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-03 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
On ven., 2010-06-04 at 02:49 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Those wanting another ordering can edit the init.d scripts directly to declare some other ordering or provide override headers in /etc/inssserv/overrides/ if they want to avoid editing in the conffiles included in the package.

Re: cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-02 Thread C. Gatzemeier
Am Tue, 1 Jun 2010 22:08:19 +0200 schrieb Jonas Meurer: should i simply tag the bugs as wontfix, describing that a solution is impossible? Some of the setups you describe may work event based using the current upstart init. Cheers, Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

cryptdisks(-early) initscripts, dependencies and loops

2010-06-01 Thread Jonas Meurer
Hello, in the past cryptsetup got several bugreports which complain about the lsb dependenciy headers specified in cryptdisks and cryptdisks-early initscipts. (#576646, #575652) the problem is that loads of possible setups are possible, all introducing different required initscript order. either