[arch-dev-public] [signoff] initscripts-2011.04.1-1
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 14:19:55 EDT 2011
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
>>> * We no longer call mdadm, as this is dealt with by udev
> The relevant rule file is shipped with mdadm and has been for a long
> time (2008). The rule file gained support for IMSM arrays in mdadm
> version 3.2, so it might be best to use a relatively up-to-date mdadm.
> Can we assume that people are not holding back mdadm and upgrading
One would think so, and 2008 is in fact quite old so probably not
something to fret about. (Note: our binaries require a kernel >=
2.6.27 anyway, which was released in late 2008).
>>> * We no longer copy rule files from /dev/.udev on boot, as this is
>>> dealt with by udev
> Handling of persistent net/cd links has been in udev for a long time
> (the exact udev version escapes me at the moment). However, as a
> general rule I would be in favor of forcing an up-to-date udev. (In
> this particular case the problem was the opposite: the newest udev
> broke our persistent rule handling).
> The only package I have assumed might be anything but the most recent
> is the kernel. Would anyone object to making this the official policy
> for initscript, as I don't think we have the manpower to support other
> combination of packages? If no one objects, I'll put a note about this
> in the release notes.
+1 from me. Noting in the release notes that "this version of
initscripts requires udev >= xxx" seems appropriate. However,
enforcing policy via provided mechanisms (versioned depends) is a good
thing as far as I can see.
More information about the arch-dev-public