also sprach Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [2006.11.09.1156 +0100]:
> Yes, it does. But we do have to draw the line somewhere; is there any
> particular reason that 2.5.5 isn't an ok place to draw that line? "9 of 10
> days old and I've tested it extensively" sounds like exactly where we want
> to be right now for a package as important as mdadm; "about to upload a new
> upstream version of mdadm that hasn't been tested yet", much less so.
which is why I was not going to upload 2.5.6 until 2.5.5 was in
testing and then see if 2.5.6 makes it through.
Frans, what's there to say against letting mdadm 2.5.5 be part of
d-i RC1 and thus to migrate to etch today? It fixes an RC bug in
2.5.3 currently in testing, and I would definitely prefer people to
use 2.5.5 instead of the 2.5.3 series.
2.5.6 basically fixes #396582, which is an important bug that could
very well bite people who are trying to boot systems with degraded
arrays. It does include other changes, but minor ones:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-mdadm/mdadm/trunk/debian/changelog?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
As said before, changes between testing and 2.5.6 available now are
basically all because I fed them to upstream or asked upstream to
fix a certain issue.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"if a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is
interrupted at a very last resort, and the access of the memory makes
your floppy disk abort, then the socket packet pocket has an error to
report."
-- <speedstream>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)