Your message dated Sun, 19 Sep 2021 16:40:03 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: [Pkg-utopia-maintainers] Bug#994690: udisks2: Switch to exfatprogs mkfs.exfat incomplete has caused the Debian Bug report #994690, regarding udisks2: Switch to exfatprogs mkfs.exfat incomplete 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 [email protected] immediately.) -- 994690: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994690 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: udisks2 Version: 2.9.3-1 Severity: normal Tags: patch Hi Michael, due to a bugreport for exfatprogs[1] I took note of #992152 which tried to move from exfat-utils to exfatprogs. Thanks for moving on with that one, much appreciated. Sadly the switch is not that easy since the commandline flags differ. The exfat-utils mkfs tool used '-n' for labeling but exfatprogs authors choose the more common '-L'. The fix should be a rather trivial one-char change: --- udiskslinuxfsinfo.c.orig 2021-09-19 15:27:08.945433340 +0200 +++ udiskslinuxfsinfo.c 2021-09-19 15:29:11.750075406 +0200 @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ NULL, FALSE, /* supports_online_label_rename */ FALSE, /* supports_owners */ - "mkfs.exfat -n $LABEL $DEVICE", + "mkfs.exfat -L $LABEL $DEVICE", NULL, NULL, /* option_no_discard */ }, Regards, Sven [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994529 -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages udisks2 depends on: ii dbus 1.12.20-2 ii libacl1 2.3.1-1 pn libatasmart4 <none> pn libblockdev-fs2 <none> pn libblockdev-loop2 <none> pn libblockdev-part2 <none> pn libblockdev-swap2 <none> pn libblockdev-utils2 <none> pn libblockdev2 <none> ii libc6 2.32-3 ii libglib2.0-0 2.68.4-1 ii libgudev-1.0-0 237-2 ii libmount1 2.37.2-2 ii libpolkit-agent-1-0 0.105-31 ii libpolkit-gobject-1-0 0.105-31 ii libsystemd0 247.9-1 pn libudisks2-0 <none> ii libuuid1 2.37.2-2 pn parted <none> ii udev 247.9-1 Versions of packages udisks2 recommends: ii dosfstools 4.2-1 ii e2fsprogs 1.46.4-1 pn eject <none> ii exfatprogs 1.1.2-2 pn libblockdev-crypto2 <none> ii libpam-systemd 247.9-1 pn ntfs-3g <none> ii policykit-1 0.105-31 Versions of packages udisks2 suggests: pn btrfs-progs <none> pn f2fs-tools <none> pn libblockdev-mdraid2 <none> pn mdadm <none> pn nilfs-tools <none> pn reiserfsprogs <none> pn udftools <none> pn udisks2-bcache <none> pn udisks2-btrfs <none> pn udisks2-lvm2 <none> pn udisks2-zram <none> pn xfsprogs <none>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 03:55:03PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: Hi Michael, > > due to a bugreport for exfatprogs[1] I took note of > > #992152 which tried to move from exfat-utils to exfatprogs. > > Thanks for moving on with that one, much appreciated. Sadly > > the switch is not that easy since the commandline flags > > differ. The exfat-utils mkfs tool used '-n' for labeling but > > exfatprogs authors choose the more common '-L'. > > Are you sure this is actually a problem? > https://github.com/storaged-project/udisks/issues/882#issuecomment-824117165 > > " > Turns out that the exfattools utility understand '-n' for compatibility > reason even if the help doesn't include the option, > " Yes it's a fallthrough in exfatprogs [1]. I believe it will stay like that until there is a need to reuse '-n' (likely never), so no it's not a problem in the sense of it does not work. I just thought it would be sensible to adjust it to the documented commandline flags if you move to exfatprogs. But yeah from the upstream perspective it also makes a lot of sense to stick to '-n' to be compatible with both implementations. Thinking this through I opt for closing this bug, sorry for the noise. Sven [1] https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs/blob/master/mkfs/mkfs.c#L613
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ Pkg-utopia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-utopia-maintainers
