Greetings, First, sorry about the very negative tone of my message. I had meant to start it with "First the good news: thanks for the transitional raidtools2 package!" But with emotions running high and a rush to get this out at the end of the day, I neglected this important part of the report.
And thank you Matthijs for the link into the release notes, I should have caught that. On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 22:12 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-19 20:02]: > > The transition from raidtools2 to mdadm breaks all installations with > > more than one RAID array > > > That the transitional raidtools2 package entered sarge just days before > > the release (and that sarge had zero testing cycles, unlike potato or > > woody) means that there was just about zero testing for it, and it is > > too late for those admins who like me have since rebooted had the same > > problem. But for those who have not needed to reboot, please upload a > > fix (translate raidtab to something mdadm understands?) or a *prominent* > > debconf warning (maybe even a warning in the raidtools2 description) to > > testing-proposed-updates. > > The fact that raidtools2 entered sarge relatively late doesn't really > have much to do with it since it was pretty clear what would break and > what wouldn't. However, our assumption was that most people would use > RAID devices that are set to autoconfiguration (and therefore don't > need a configuration file for mdadm to work) and that the rest would > be experienced enough to read the release notes or NEWS.Debian after > an upgrade. While there's no debconf message, there is a clear > NEWS.Debian message which explains exactly what you need to do. I see. Unfortunately, I focused on the "Issues to be aware of for sarge" section, and since it wasn't there, assumed my upgrade would go smoothly, particularly since I had been using sarge on this server since late March. Perhaps this notice, or a reference to it, should go in section 5 for r1? With 104 NEWS.Debian files on my system, it's probably best to assume that people will not read those during the upgrade. > I'm not sure about what to do. Obviously, the situation isn't ideal > but I thought a dummy package depending on mdadm and including a > NEWS.Debian was better than nothing at all - since it will work for > most people. In any case, I'm not sure how many people will not have > upgraded before r1 given that kernel security fixes are schedulded to > come out before. > > If you have any idea about a good solution that is acceptable for r1, > I'd certainly like to hear it. But personally I'm not sure what to > do. I understand. For the most part it's "spilt milk" at this point. Would you accept a patch with a prominent debconf warning? Although there are hundreds of debconf dialogs during a typical upgrade, at least one can be sure that this crosses the admin's screen, in contrast to NEWS.Debian. I suppose this illustrates why we need to be more careful with testing during the release process next time... Thanks, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
