FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-27-2010, 05:38 PM
Thomas Bchler
 
Default device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1

I put updated device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1
packages to testing.

These packages enable udev synchronization to finally get rid of all
race conditions related to udev rules. I also cleaned up the PKGBUILDs
massively and removed all static binaries and libraries from the packages.

Dynamic lvm and cryptsetup now run entirely from /{bin,lib}, without the
need for /usr.

Please sign off.
 
Old 05-27-2010, 09:08 PM
Ray Kohler
 
Default device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Thomas Bchler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> I put updated device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1
> packages to testing.
>
> These packages enable udev synchronization to finally get rid of all
> race conditions related to udev rules. I also cleaned up the PKGBUILDs
> massively and removed all static binaries and libraries from the packages.
>
> Dynamic lvm and cryptsetup now run entirely from /{bin,lib}, without the
> need for /usr.
>
> Please sign off.

You need "force" option for cryptsetup because 1.1.1_rc2-1 sorts as
newer than 1.1.1-1:

warning: cryptsetup: local (1.1.1_rc2-1) is newer than testing (1.1.1-1)
 
Old 05-27-2010, 10:43 PM
Thomas Bchler
 
Default device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1

Am 27.05.2010 23:08, schrieb Ray Kohler:
> You need "force" option for cryptsetup because 1.1.1_rc2-1 sorts as
> newer than 1.1.1-1:
>
> warning: cryptsetup: local (1.1.1_rc2-1) is newer than testing (1.1.1-1)
>

I think I'm not going to add it. The 'force' option introduces some very
weird behaviour from what I remember. As the rc2 package was only in
testing, it shouldn't be a big deal, testing users should know what
they're doing and upgrade manually.
 
Old 05-28-2010, 09:30 PM
Eric Blanger
 
Default device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Thomas Bchler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> I put updated device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1
> packages to testing.
>
> These packages enable udev synchronization to finally get rid of all
> race conditions related to udev rules. I also cleaned up the PKGBUILDs
> massively and removed all static binaries and libraries from the packages.
>
> Dynamic lvm and cryptsetup now run entirely from /{bin,lib}, without the
> need for /usr.
>
> Please sign off.
>
>

signing off i686. Will test it for x86_64 later unless someone else
signoff before.
 
Old 05-29-2010, 10:28 AM
Roman Kyrylych
 
Default device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1

On 2010-05-28, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 27.05.2010 23:08, schrieb Ray Kohler:
>> You need "force" option for cryptsetup because 1.1.1_rc2-1 sorts as
>> newer than 1.1.1-1:
>>
>> warning: cryptsetup: local (1.1.1_rc2-1) is newer than testing (1.1.1-1)
>>
>
> I think I'm not going to add it. The 'force' option introduces some very
> weird behaviour from what I remember. As the rc2 package was only in
> testing, it shouldn't be a big deal, testing users should know what
> they're doing and upgrade manually.

Not sure what weird behaviour you mean.
Anyway, the package works and my root and four other partitions are
mounted without issues,
so here's my signoff for x86_64.

--
Roman Kyrylych (*оман Кирилич)
 
Old 05-29-2010, 10:48 AM
Thomas Bchler
 
Default device-mapper/lvm2 2.02.66 and cryptsetup 1.1.1

Am 29.05.2010 12:28, schrieb Roman Kyrylych:
>> I think I'm not going to add it. The 'force' option introduces some very
>> weird behaviour from what I remember. As the rc2 package was only in
>> testing, it shouldn't be a big deal, testing users should know what
>> they're doing and upgrade manually.
>
> Not sure what weird behaviour you mean.

pacman will "upgrade" from any version to this version. If a user adds a
new version to his local system for testing, pacman will always
"upgrade" to the older one. Considering that such a package may stay in
core for quite some time, this is unexpected behaviour.

If the version problem was outside of testing, it would justify adding
the force flag - however, as the "problem" is confined to testing, I
consider it a minor annoyance that shouldn't be worked around in such a
hackish way.

> Anyway, the package works and my root and four other partitions are
> mounted without issues,
> so here's my signoff for x86_64.

Great.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org