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

Bug#775164: marked as done (unblock: mdadm/3.3.2-5)



Your message dated Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:49:17 +0100
with message-id <54C564DD.5030807@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#775164: unblock: mdadm/3.3.2-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #775164,
regarding unblock: mdadm/3.3.2-5
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.)


-- 
775164: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=775164
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package mdadm

It contains a single noticeable change which fixes a bug which is important
for upgrades from wheezy -- #770883 (https://bugs.debian.org/770883).
The original problem is that udev in wheezy does not understand $devnode
variable in its .rules file, so new mdadm will not work with old udev,
and mdadm does not declare versioned dependency on udev.  Instead of
introducing a versioned dependency (with larger breakage potential), I
decided to fix this by using a variant of .rules file which will work
equally well with both old and new versions of udev.

There are 2 other changes in the package - adding forgotten bug numbers
into debian/changelog to the points/versions when these bugs has been
fixed.

The package has been in testing in this form for a long time already.

When unblocking mdadm, it should be unblocked for the debian installer
too since it produces udeb too.

Thanks,

/mjt

unblock mdadm/3.3.2-5
unblock-udev mdadm/3.3.2-5


diff -Nru mdadm-3.3.2/debian/changelog mdadm-3.3.2/debian/changelog
--- mdadm-3.3.2/debian/changelog	2014-12-05 17:29:22.000000000 +0300
+++ mdadm-3.3.2/debian/changelog	2014-12-20 11:48:54.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,8 +1,20 @@
+mdadm (3.3.2-5) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch: change udev rules file to use
+    $tempnode which works both on wheezy and jessie udev, instead
+    of $devnode which only works in jessie.  At this stage it is
+    better to make rules file compatible with old version instead
+    of adding versioned dependency.  Should be removed for jessie+1.
+    (Closes: #770883)
+  * fix Closes: list in previous entry (Closes: #771852)
+
+ -- Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>  Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:48:44 +0300
+
 mdadm (3.3.2-4) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * really remove /var/lib/mdadm in postinst, fixing a brown-paper bag
     bug in previous upload (I fixed it earlier but forgot to commit it
-    before 3.3.2-3 release).  (Closes: #764036 #771852)
+    before 3.3.2-3 release).  (Closes: #764036, #771852)
   * mention closing of #588965 #599352 #694513 by 3.3-1
 
  -- Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>  Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:29:22 +0300
@@ -84,7 +96,7 @@
 mdadm (3.3-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   [ Michael Tokarev ]
-  * new upstream 3.3 release (Closes: #718896 #588965 #599352 #694513)
+  * new upstream 3.3 release (Closes: #718896, #588965, #599352, #694513)
     See ANNOUNCE-3.3 for details.
     Patches:
     - refreshed debian-conffile-location.diff
diff -Nru mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/series mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/series
--- mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/series	2014-11-14 19:16:41.000000000 +0300
+++ mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/series	2014-12-05 18:59:42.000000000 +0300
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 debian-no-Werror.diff
 sha1-includes.diff
 use-external-blkid.diff
+use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch
 build-sys-no-check_rundir.patch
 rebuildmap-strip-local-host-name-from-device-name.patch
 readlink-path.patch
diff -Nru mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch
--- mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch	1970-01-01 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
+++ mdadm-3.3.2/debian/patches/use-tempnode-not-devnode.patch	2014-12-05 19:10:18.000000000 +0300
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
+Subject: use tempnode not devnode in udev rules
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/770883
+Forwarded: no
+
+udev in wheezy does not understand $devnode construct
+in rules file, while upstream uses it in mdadm rules
+files.  udev in jessie has $devnode and it also supports
+old $tempnode which is the way it worked in wheezy and
+before, even if $tempnode in jessie's udev is not documented.
+So on jessie, both $tempnode and $devnode works fine, while
+in wheezy, only $tempnode works.
+
+Use $tempnode instead of $devnode.  Since mdadm is important
+enough for system functionality and easily can break system
+by making it unbootable, and this is the only incompatibility
+between wheezy's and jessie's udev wrt mdadm, it is better than
+having a versioned dependency on udev.
+
+This patch is debian-specific and should be dropped for jessie+1.
+
+--- a/udev-md-raid-arrays.rules
++++ b/udev-md-raid-arrays.rules
+@@ -20 +20 @@
+-IMPORT{program}="BINDIR/mdadm --detail --export $devnode"
++IMPORT{program}="BINDIR/mdadm --detail --export $tempnode"
+--- a/udev-md-raid-assembly.rules
++++ b/udev-md-raid-assembly.rules
+@@ -30 +30 @@
+-ACTION=="add|change", IMPORT{program}="BINDIR/mdadm --incremental --export $devnode --offroot ${DEVLINKS}"
++ACTION=="add|change", IMPORT{program}="BINDIR/mdadm --incremental --export $tempnode --offroot ${DEVLINKS}"

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2015-01-25 22:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
> 
> Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> (2015-01-13):
>> Control: tags -1 d-i
>>
>> Ok from RT, CC'ing KiBi for d-i ACK.
>>
>> Original message quoted below for KiBi's convenience.
> 
> No objections.
> 
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
> 

Thanks, I have added an udeb unblock hint.

~Niels

--- End Message ---

Reply to: