Hi Don,
Don Armstrong writes:
> Do you have an updated patch with this change and a documentation of the
> tmpfiles.d change?
>
> I will draft a resolution shortly to implement this patch, and will
> open it for discussion.
Bastian has uploaded lvm2 2.02.104-1 which contains my patch:
http://pack
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:11AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/debian/lvm2-activation-early.service
> >
> > Wrong name.
> Renaming them to lvm2{,-early}.service as you suggested is fine wi
Am 19.01.2014 11:59, schrieb Bastian Blank:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:33:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 01:20:41PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
>>> - lvm2.service is statically hooked to local-fs.target, as all local
>>> mounts.
>> lvm2.service is not a local mount,
Bastian Blank wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:33:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Wants= will make sure the systemd-udev-settle.service is started
>> dynamically and After= ensures the correct ordering.
>
> It only makes sure that systemd-udev-settle.service was started
> somewhere _before_.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:33:32PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 01:20:41PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > - lvm2.service is statically hooked to local-fs.target, as all local
> > mounts.
> lvm2.service is not a local mount, so that is not really a justification for
> ena
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 01:20:41PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Untested patch:
>
> - Static services with the correct name.
Well, the original names from the upstream patch weren't really incorrect.
You just have to make sure that the lvm2 sysv init script is correcly
"shadowed" by the native s
Hi Bastian,
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:11AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/debian/lvm2-activation-early.service
>
> Wrong name.
Renaming them to lvm2{,-early}.service as you suggested is fine with me.
>> +[Unit]
>> +Description=Activation of
Le Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:43:30 +0100,
Laurent Bigonville a écrit :
> Hi,
After a small discussion with Bastian I realized that I was confused
with the generator and lvmetad (I should have done my homework a bit
more carefully).
> Just came here to add my 2¢ about this in the light of my recent
>
Untested patch:
- Static services with the correct name.
- lvm2.service is statically hooked to local-fs.target, as all local
mounts.
- lvm2-early.service is statically hooked to cryptsetup.target, as all
crypto devices.
| drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2014-01-18 12:32 ./lib/systemd/
| drwxr
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:11AM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/debian/lvm2-activation-early.service
Wrong name.
> +[Unit]
> +Description=Activation of LVM2 logical volumes
> +Documentation=man:lvm(8) man:vgchange(8)
> +DefaultDependencies=no
> +After=systemd-udev-sett
Hi Don,
Don Armstrong writes:
> Michael: can you go ahead and prepare the patch to fix #728486 which
> does not use generators so that once the CTTE has resolved the init
> system question we have a patch in front of us that we can rule on?
Of course!
Attached you can find a patch against the cu
Hi,
Just came here to add my 2¢ about this in the light of my recent
experience I had with an other package (nut) where devices were not
present when the daemon was starting.
My initial solution was also to depends against udev-settle.service
service. This was ensuring that the devices were prese
Michael: can you go ahead and prepare the patch to fix #728486 which
does not use generators so that once the CTTE has resolved the init
system question we have a patch in front of us that we can rule on?
Thanks.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
Judge if you wan
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 03:11:03PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
> > After systemd was fixed, yes.
> Can you let me know which p
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
>
> After systemd was fixed, yes.
Can you let me know which part of systemd needed to be fixed? [What bug#
is this?]
Can you also
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 11:48:54PM +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Don,
> Don Armstrong writes:
> > I'd like to get this particular bug discussion restarted.
> Thanks for your mail.
> > From my understanding, a static, non generator version of
> > lvm2_activation_generator_sys
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 05:49:13PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Bastian: Would such a patch be acceptable in principle?
After systemd was fixed, yes.
Bastian
--
Conquest is easy. Control is not.
-- Kirk, "Mirror, Mirror", stardate unknown
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-b
Hi Don,
Don Armstrong writes:
> I'd like to get this particular bug discussion restarted.
Thanks for your mail.
> From my understanding, a static, non generator version of
> lvm2_activation_generator_systemd_red_hat.c will allow for the
> activation of lvm2 after the addition of an lvm device by
I'd like to get this particular bug discussion restarted.
From my understanding, a static, non generator version of
lvm2_activation_generator_systemd_red_hat.c will allow for the
activation of lvm2 after the addition of an lvm device by udev/systemd.
Michael: Is this correct?
Bastian: Would such
19 matches
Mail list logo
