Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-07 Thread Thomas Bächler
Am 08.12.2010 00:47, schrieb Alexander Duscheleit: > Do you think, you can have a look at https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16625 > > It's a constant annoyance if you use something like qemu/kvm/etc and > have to wait ~20 seconds on every boot just for your dhcp-assigned > IP-Address. > > Thanks, >

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-07 Thread Alexander Duscheleit
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:39:06 +0100 Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Allan McRae > wrote: > > While looking through bugs for [core] packages, I notice that there > > are a large number of bug report for these three packages.  In > > total they account for ~13% of the bugs in

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-07 Thread Thomas Bächler
Am 07.12.2010 14:30, schrieb Dieter Plaetinck: >> The problem is: If blkid finds more than one valid signature, it will >> not return anything, and we will mistakenly believe that there is no >> file system (and happily overwrite the drive). This part of >> initscripts is giving me a headache every

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-07 Thread Dieter Plaetinck
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:10:12 +0100 Thomas Bächler wrote: > The problem is: If blkid finds more than one valid signature, it will > not return anything, and we will mistakenly believe that there is no > file system (and happily overwrite the drive). This part of > initscripts is giving me a headac

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > I pushed everything to the official git tree. Great! > There's one more thing about the check in the SWAP area of the crypttab > code: Instead of using isLuks to check for a LUKS device, check with > blkid whether there is any valid file sy

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Thomas Bächler
Am 06.12.2010 16:48, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> Thanks. The initscripts patch won't work though: >> >> [[ $USELVM =~ yes|YES && -x /sbin/lvm && -d /sys/block ]] || return >> "return" is a statement that will only work inside a function. I don'

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Thanks. The initscripts patch won't work though: > > [[ $USELVM =~ yes|YES && -x /sbin/lvm && -d /sys/block ]] || return > "return" is a statement that will only work inside a function. I don't > know what it will do on the top level, but cer

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Thomas Bächler
Am 06.12.2010 13:43, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: >> https://github.com/teg/initscripts-arch/commit/b4c804d60d6e8361db3f19bf3a2fa6fb58ee8458 >> >> Two short comments about this commit: >> >> 1) We need to run vgchange again after rw-mounting every

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > https://github.com/teg/initscripts-arch/commit/b4c804d60d6e8361db3f19bf3a2fa6fb58ee8458 > > Two short comments about this commit: > > 1) We need to run vgchange again after rw-mounting everything (without > --sysinit), so monitoring can be s

Re: [arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Thomas Bächler
Am 06.12.2010 11:39, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Allan McRae wrote: >> While looking through bugs for [core] packages, I notice that there are a >> large number of bug report for these three packages. In total they account >> for ~13% of the bugs in the tracker! > >

[arch-general] [RFC] patches to initscripts

2010-12-06 Thread Tom Gundersen
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > While looking through bugs for [core] packages, I notice that there are a > large number of bug report for these three packages.  In total they account > for ~13% of the bugs in the tracker! [...] > But given these are some of the uniqueness