Quoting Bastian Blank (firstname.lastname@example.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 this. 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.
Description: Digital signature