[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please unblock lvm2/2.02.39-6

Quoting Bastian Blank (waldi@debian.org):
> Hi folks
> Please unblock lvm2/2.02.39-6.
> It introduces several bug fixes.

Let's try to make the release team easier...

That releases introduces the following changes, compared to the
release in testing:

 lvm2 (2.02.39-3) unstable; urgency=low
   * Depend against lsb-base.
   * Make clvm depend against cman.
   * Don't ignore locking failures in lvm2 init script.
   * Only activate vgs local.
   * Add clvm initscript. (closes: #336258)
   * Try to activate anything in the lvm2 postinst. (closes: #506105)

 lvm2 (2.02.39-4) unstable; urgency=low
   * Revert locking change, it breaks too much. (closes: #506354)
   * Disable cluster support in udeb.
   * Install the binary as lvm in the initramfs. (closes: #503627)
   * Build cluster locking internal.
   * Adjust clvm documentation for the locking change.

 lvm2 (2.02.39-5) unstable; urgency=low
   * Install lvm.conf into initramfs. (closes: #439761)
   * Also ignore locking in initramfs.
   * Make piuparts-clean. (closes: 455115)
     - Cleanup old files on upgrade. /lib/lvm-default, /etc/lvm/.cache.
     - Cleanup dirs on remove. /etc/lvm/cache, /var/lock/lvm.
   * Recommend dmsetup.

 lvm2 (2.02.39-6) unstable; urgency=low
   * Readd a vgchange binary into the initramfs. At least cryptsetup depends on

So, -4 was triggering some RC bugs, such as #506536 and #506534. This
is fixed in -6

From quite far, this makes a lot of changes and, would I be in the
release team, I would feel quite uncomfortable allowing such changes
to go in testing when seeing how they can hardly break systems. The
"it breaks to much" comment is indeed quite self-explanatory here.

Notbeing a release team member, this is of course up to them to decide
but I felt some "duty" to try helping around here. Such big noodles
plate is probably not something we really want so close to a release.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: