On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 08:58:46PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > (taking unrelated bugs out of the loop.) > > also sprach Erik van Konijnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.21.1957 +0200]: > > * at S40 or so, you come along, see that /dev/md0 exists, and decide > > not to do MAKEDEV > > No, I come along at S25 and I do not give a flying food for whether > /dev/md0 exists or not. I just create all /dev/md* nodes, regardless > of whether some or all already exist, iff udev is being used.
Quoting from the patch you mailed earlier today: + if [ -d /dev/.udevdb -a ! -e /dev/md0 -a ! -e /dev/md/0 ]; then + echo -n "Creating raid device nodes: " + cd /dev && WRITE_ON_UDEV=1 ./MAKEDEV md + echo "done." + fi + echo -n "Starting raid devices: " that looks like you're skipping MAKEDEV is /dev/md0 exists, but my bash is a bit rusty, so correct me if I'm wrong. > > Understood. I'm not a Debian maintainer, so none of the release > > pressure is on me; if you don't have room to work on this option, > > the alternative is fine with me. This patch is intended as > > a fallback in case your earlier upload does not make it through > > testing. > > It's intended to make it through testing. sarge will not release > without mdadm, or when mdadm has an RC bug. > > > As a worst case scenario, you can degrade the bug to wishlist and > > claim that users should do the auto thing in the config file. > > No, that's not an option. This is Debian, after all. :) bugs.debian.org: it's RC if the maintainer says so, or if it renders the system unusable. Since there is a workaround (just do the documented thing in the config file), you have the option of changing your mind about this being RC, should that become necessary. Perhaps we should move this issue to debian-legal :-) > > > Isn't --auto=yes intended to enable this but read the actual setting > > > from the configuration file? I am not sure that your patch still > > > allows this. > > > > You're right that we should look at this, for now that's completely > > untested in this patch. > > > > I'll dive in and see if I can find out what's supposed to happen. > > Thanks! > > I think it would be best if you could file a new (wishlist) bug > against mdadm and attach the patch to that, so that we can treat the > two as separate issues. OK. BTW, you were correct in suspecting the auto=mdp interaction is not optimal; I'll make it a wishlist report after testing. Regards, Erik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
