Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-05-29 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Frans Pop [2010.05.29.1756 +0200]: > But is that realistic for Squeeze? Colin Watson says Grub2 is not too badly out of shape. Upstream would be willing to introduce a compile-time flag. I think I'll go the latter path. -- .''`. martin f. krafft Related projects: : :' :

Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-05-29 Thread Frans Pop
On Friday 28 May 2010, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Frans Pop [2010.03.14.0811 +0100]: > > > Yes, I think it should be in mdadm. It should be as easy as > > > reverting > > > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mdadm/mdadm.git;a=commitdiff;h=7d5c3964 > > >ccfa ace123f7b75e15d38c2650e013d8 > > > >

Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-05-28 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Frans Pop [2010.03.14.0811 +0100]: > > Yes, I think it should be in mdadm. It should be as easy as > > reverting > > http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-mdadm/mdadm.git;a=commitdiff;h=7d5c3964ccfa > >ace123f7b75e15d38c2650e013d8 > > What's the status of this? Upstream has since moved the de

Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-03-13 Thread Frans Pop
Hi Martin, On Saturday 13 February 2010, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Frans Pop [2010.02.12.1238 +1300]: > > > but I think we should make 0.9 the default for squeeze and move > > > to 1.1 only afterwards, once grub-pc knows how to deal with it. > > > > Do you want to do that in mdadm itse

Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-02-12 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Frans Pop [2010.02.12.1238 +1300]: > > but I think we should make 0.9 the default for squeeze and move > > to 1.1 only afterwards, once grub-pc knows how to deal with it. > > Do you want to do that in mdadm itself, or should D-I do it? For > consistency mdadm seems more logical. Yes,

Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-02-11 Thread Frans Pop
Thanks for the reply. On Thursday 11 February 2010, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Frans Pop [2010.02.12.0427 +1300]: > > 1) offer the choice to users > > I see from the Lenny mdadm man page that there are 4 (!) different > > metadata versions: 0.90, 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2. > > - Is there any rea

Re: [RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-02-11 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Frans Pop [2010.02.12.0427 +1300]: > This seems to be causing some problems. I am aware, but going to a conference right now and flying back to Europe next week, so I am unlikely going to be able to do much about it for now. > 1) offer the choice to users > I see from the Lenny mdadm

[RFC] Dealing with mdadm superblock metadata default change

2010-02-11 Thread Frans Pop
This seems to be causing some problems. For compatibility with Lenny (using Squeeze installer to install Lenny, #568975) I suggest we simply force the metadata version to 0.90. It's the simplest way to avoid problems and it's what users expect for Lenny anyway. For Squeeze I wonder what the b