[arch-dev-public] [signoff] initscripts-2011.04.1-1

Dan McGee 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
> initscripts?
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 mailing list