Hi Frans,
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:37:32AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 03 December 2007, Max Vozeler wrote:
> > I've carefully gone through them and noted the differences,
> > hoping to replace them all with a common commit_changes in
> > partman-base/definition.sh
>
> I agree that factoring this out makes sense. I've looked over your patch and
> the thorough analysis and can't see any holes in it.
>
> Have you done any testing with the new code? Would be great if you could do
> that before committing.
Yes, I've tested -auto-crypto, -auto-lvm, -md, -lvm, -crypto
and -partitioning by doing some random setups and injected the
two error cases with failing commit.d/init.d scripts.
I didn't test -dmraid because I couldn't figure out how, :-)
Does dmraid require special hardware?
> > The only problem I see is that it is not possible to
> > add a versioned depends on -base (>= 113) in -partitioning,
> > because -base depends on -partitioning and this would
> > introduce a circular dependency.
>
> I don't think a circular dependency would do any harm in this case.
> Suggest you just add it.
Tried this and ended up with a "Deep recursion configuring
partman-base (dep loop?)" (IIRC) from main-menu. It seems
that main-menu tries to configure partman-base and all its
dependencies, and this fails.
> Some nitpicks.
>
> The changelog entry for partman-base could be a bit more elaborate IMO and
> should include an explanation why the function was added.
Agreed, I'll try to write something more of an explanation.
Thanks for your review.
Max
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
