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

Bug#1002573: marked as done (general: fstrim, 2 errors)

Your message dated Mon, 27 Dec 2021 12:46:40 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <d0f3f3f8-74d1-198a-71cd-d0f2c8f541a@sourcepole.ch>
and subject line Re: Bug#1002573: (no subject)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1002573,
regarding general: fstrim, 2 errors
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1002573: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1002573
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: general
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

1st error:
fstrim --verbose --all
reports nothing

2nd error:
fstrim --verbose /
gives a wrong error message

For both cases, see attachment 1.png, system l5

This happens on Debian 11.2 Bullseye on an Intel hardware

The root file system is a RAID1 software array, but on a second Intel
hardware with only one SSD, same Debian version, the behavior of fstrim
is the same

On a Raspberry Pi with Debian 10 Buster, everything works fine (see
attachment 2.png, system b4)

Notice on both screenshots: the fstrim versions are the same

Attachment: 1.png
Description: PNG image

Attachment: 2.png
Description: PNG image


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, detlev schmidtke wrote:


No, I am out of here

If the bug is not reproducible for you by now, it is not worth
to persue it

You might want to close this issue
We are not a shop that is providing services to you. If the ticket needs to be closed then please *do the work* (done herewith). 
*t

--- End Message ---
Reply to: