Don Armstrong wrote: > Below is the current draft of a resolution to resolve 728486. I have one > current comment in the draft which I would like clarified. [CTTE > members: please comment/suggest change.] I also expect to change the > reference to the patch to a newly updated patch with the changes > suggested in > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728486#183. > > ==BEGIN DRAFT== > > When systemd is in operation in conjunction with lvm and lvmetad is > not in use, lvchange -aay must be called after udevadm --settle which > is provided by systemd-udev-settle.service, and before (and after) > encrypted devices are configured (cryptsetup.target). > > ==COMMENT== > Is there any case where udevadm --settle would be required after the > encrypted devices are configured? Does cryptsetup.target ensure that > udev has triggered the appropriate rules for the newly configured > encrypted devices? > ==END COMMENT== > > The patch prepared by Michael Stapelberg <stapelb...@debian.org> in > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728486#163 installs > the two systemd unit files necessary to properly configure lvm devices > when systemd is running, and additionally configures systemd-tmpfiles.d to > create the lockfile directories required by systemd. > > Therefore, the CTTE: > > A. Overides the objection of the maintainer of lvm (Bastian Blank > <wa...@debian.org>) to this patch, and directs the maintainer to > accept this patch or alternatively, authorizes an NMU to implement > this patch.
One minor nit for this draft: the ruling should not exclude the possibility of enhancing LVM in the future to handle dynamically added devices *without* using systemd-udev-settle.service. (That may occur by using lvmetad in cases where it works, for instance.) Suggested change, if a TC member agrees: leave all the existing content, but add an additional paragraph right before the "Therefore" saying: "Nothing in this ruling should be taken to block future changes to LVM to support dynamic discovery of devices without the need for udevadm --settle or systemd-udev-settle.service; in the event such changes fully obsolete the patch in question, the patch may be dropped." Does that sound reasonable? - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140129221933.GA16719@jtriplet-mobl1
