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!

[...]

...

But given these are some of the uniqueness of Arch, I wonder what we _as a group_ could to do to improve this situation? Perhaps organize a hack-a-thon on IRC one day? Or we could advertise for help, with the selection criterion being a git repo provided by the applicant showing they can do stuff?

As discussed with Allan, here are some patches to initscripts: https://github.com/teg/initscripts-arch.

Comments very much welcome.

I started off with what appeared to me as the low-hanging fruit. Once I have had feedback on this I'll have a look at more difficult (or invasive) problems.

My long-term goal is to ease the maintenance burden of initscripts by simplifying them and harmonizing them with other distros/projects (without, of course, loosing any of their features).

https://github.com/teg/initscripts-arch/commit/b4c804d60d6e8361db3f19bf3a2fa... Two short comments about this commit: 1) We need to run vgchange again after rw-mounting everything (without --sysinit), so monitoring can be set up. 2) mkinitcpio's LVM hook also needs --sysinit. The rest of the patches are fine.

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't know what it will do on the top level, but certainly not what you'd expect.

D'oh! Copy-paste error, sorry about that.

Updated commit: https://github.com/teg/initscripts-arch/commit/feef447b8368244525dd98582b662....

Thanks for testing,

Tom

I pushed everything to the official git tree. 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 system signature on it. 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 everytime I touch it.

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 headache everytime I touch it.

what do the util-linux-ng maintainers say about that? Isn't this something that should be fixed in the blkid source code? Dieter

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 the tracker!

[...]

...

But given these are some of the uniqueness of Arch, I wonder what we _as a group_ could to do to improve this situation?  Perhaps organize a hack-a-thon on IRC one day?  Or we could advertise for help, with the selection criterion being a git repo provided by the applicant showing they can do stuff?

As discussed with Allan, here are some patches to initscripts: https://github.com/teg/initscripts-arch.

Comments very much welcome.

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, Jinks