On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:01:03 +0100 > Matt Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:25PM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote: > > > Which versions are you using, to which shall they be updated and on > > > which arch are you? Knowing emerge --info and your profile might > > > also help. > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > Ok, versions in use: > > > > lvm2-2.02.10 > > mdadm-2.6.4-r1 > > udev-104-r12 > > > > I've masked updates to an versions after those above. Emerge wants to > > upgrade to the following: > > > > lvm2-2.02.28-r2 > > udev-119 > > > > udev-104 ?! That's not even in the portage tree any longer, right?
Quite possibly, its installed from the 2007.0 stage3 tarball. And in reply to Alan's post, no I'm not (intentionally) useing BL2. Nothing is marked unstable on this machine with the example of a ruby module i quite like. This was the problem before, if I let emerge upgrade mdadm and lvm2, its starts trying to run BL2 initscripts and complaining that I'm not using BL2. > In any case: Opening a bug might help you faster than we could. The only > advice I can give you is to upgrade udev first so you know which > package really has the bug and then to try newer versions of lvm, I'd > try 2.02.36 which is marked stable for amd64 (I guess, you're on x86?). Yes I'm on x86. I've got a few other amd64 systems that does have any problems, but I'm installing a test machine now with a layout as close to this problem system as possible. I'll try upgrading udev, then lvm2 and see if I can break it as well. As I say its annoying because obviously I'm about the only one with this problem. I didn't think my setup was that peculiar :P I'll look into a bug report as soon as I can pin down which package is causing the real probs. Thanks
pgpm1odwF7C94.pgp
Description: PGP signature
