On 8/9/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > reassign 436964 lvm2 > found 436964 2.02.06-4 > severity 436964 serious > tags 436964 etch > thanks > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 06:51:30PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > On 8/9/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:01:43PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > Package: Kernel > > > > Version: 2.4.27-3-sparc64-smp > > > > > I had a server go down during a power outage and upon rebooting, lvm > > > > failed to work (2.4 kernel). I could access the PVs, VGs, and LVs ok, > > > > but I could not activate the VG. Attempting to activate the VG > > > > resulted in this error: > > > > Which version of lvm2 are you referring to as the "latest"? This bug > > > report > > > is not useful in its current state; either the bug lies in the lvm2 > > > package > > > in etch for depending on features not compatible with 2.4 kernels, or this > > > is user error and not a bug at all because you're trying to use packages > > > newer than etch with a 2.4 kernel which is not supported at all. > > > This box is still sarge. > > Except clearly it's not, because you have etch versions of lvm2, > libdevmapper1.02, and dmsetup installed.
Sorry about that. I didn't realize those where etch versions. I've never done a formal upgrade, so I'm not sure how they found their way in. Oh, I know, one of the debian lvm devs on #lvm had me add: deb http://snapshot.debian.net/archive pool devmapper to my apt sources, that may be how they ended up in there. > > > lvm2 2.02.06-4 > > libdevmapper1.02 2:1.02.05-2.1 through 2:1.02.12-1 > > dmsetup 2:1.02.05-2.1 through 2:1.02.12-1 > > > lvm2 used to work. I've kept the box upgraded consistently, but it > > hadn't been rebooted in quite a while, When the power went out and > > the box rebooted lvm stopped working. presumably something lvm > > related. > > Etch userspace packages are expected to be compatible with the 2.4 kernels > in sarge. In cases where they aren't this is a bug in etch, not in sarge; > even if someone was inclined to do an ABI-changing, oldstable upload of the > 2.4 kernel for a non-security bug, there's no guarantee at all that users > will install that package before attempting an upgrade to etch, so the only > reliable way to deal with the problem is on the etch side. > Ah, ok. That makes sense. Let me know if you need any more info from me. Thanks, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]