Bug#380089: possibly inadequate solution
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:53:27PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Anyway, I disagree with the way 0.73 fixes the bug: it replicates
> the functionality provided by mdadm >=2.5-1 into a hack within the
> package. Granted, the hack is only used when mdadm >=2.5-1 is not
> installed, but still, it's a hack.
> The maintainer failed to give any reasons why his solution is
> preferred over a simple conflict against mdadm <<2.5-1, which is
> what I proposed even before we started the transition. I do not see
> why we should have a hack ensuring that everything works when mdadm
> <<2.5-1 is installed, instead of just ensuring that a newer mdadm
> should be installed by means of a conflict. Then again, a conflict
> could possibly remove the mdadm package altogether, which would be
> equally bad. There seems to be no way to tell Debian to conflict
> with versions prior to a specific package's specific version, but to
> ensure an upgrade as a resolution conflict, not the package's
> removal.
Yes, that would be a dependency then, not a conflict. The reasons for not
making this a dependency are clear.
The reasons for wishing to avoid a versioned Conflicts: are also clear to
me, being precisely those that you describe above.
So making initramfs-tools compatible with older versions of mdadm seems like
a good idea to me. Are there specific reasons why you think the proposed
solution is technically inadequate?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: