e 497110 boot loader installation failed when dmraid=true
Bug#497110: Improved support for partitioning dmraid devices
Changed Bug title to `boot loader installation failed when dmraid=true' from
`Improved support for partitioning dmraid devices'.
> severity 497110 serious
Bug#497110:
# Reopen as the BR was not assigned to parted
# and other packages need updating too
unblock 497110 by 498838
clone 497110 -1 -2 -3
reassign 497110 parted
retitle 497110 Improved support for partitioning dmraid devices
severity 497110 wishlist
block -1 by 498838
reopen -1
reopen -2
reopen -3
reassi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Reopen as the BR was not assigned to parted
> # and other packages need updating too
> unblock 497110 by 498838
Bug#498838: Please set link priority to 100 for dmraid devmapper devices
Bug#497110: boot loader installation failed when dmraid
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> Best thing is probably to add a small helper function to check for
> multipath:
>
> is_dm_multipath() {
> dmtype=$(dm_table $device)
> [ "$dmtype" = multipath ] || return 1
> }
>
> and do the following:
> device=$(cat $dev/device)
>
>
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> ++#ifdef ENABLE_DEVICE_MAPPER
> ++static int _is_dmraid_device (char* devpath);
> ++static int _is_dmraid_major(char* devpath);
> ++#endif
In my cleanup I also added a space after the function name in the 3rd line
here (minor consistency i
Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> P.S. Are you subscribed to the d-boot list or should we keep you CCed?
>
>
> No, I'm not subscribed, please keep me CCed.
Please subscribe! You are doing a very good job helping d-i team to
get this sorted out and would be awesome to count on you f
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Frans Pop ha scritto:
> > This should be done by a test _inside_ the if statement and not by
> > adding a condition to the if statement:
> >
> > Also, the comment just above that code should be updated!
>
> Done.
Oops, sorry. The idea is OK
Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
> Looks fine however there's a wrong indentation on the static vars to
> hold the uuid values. Please take a look and resend. I'll then use
> your patch to commit on parted git and prepare an upload.
Fixed, previous was not cleaned-up, sorry.
Giuseppe
diff -u parted-
Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
> Looks fine however there's a wrong indentation on the static vars to
> hold the uuid values. Please take a look and resend. I'll then use
> your patch to commit on parted git and prepare an upload.
Fixed.
Giuseppe.
reverted:
--- parted-1.8.8.git.2008.03.24/.gitigno
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> This should be done by a test _inside_ the if statement and not by adding
> a condition to the if statement:
>
> if echo $device | grep -q "^/dev/mapper/"; then
> [ -f "$dev/sataraid" ] || continue
>
> dmtype=$(dm_table $device)
>
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> On Saturday 06 September 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
>> At first glance the patch also needs some cleanup. The .gitignore
>> changes look like they are just noise and the actual changes are not
>> really consistent regarding whitespace for example.
>
> Here's a cleaned-up versio
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> I merged all relative dmraid Ubuntu changes in:
Yeah, this really looks like another great example of Ubuntu "giving back"
to Debian.
> devmapper
This looks trivial, but will definitely need an OK from the maintainer and
a freeze except
Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I merged all relative dmraid Ubuntu changes in:
>
> devmapper
Looks to be safe but requires an OK by maintainer and RT.
> parted
Looks fine however there's a wrong indentation on the static vars to
hold the uuid values. Please take a look and rese
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> At first glance the patch also needs some cleanup. The .gitignore
> changes look like they are just noise and the actual changes are not
> really consistent regarding whitespace for example.
Here's a cleaned-up version.
diff -u parted-1.8.8.git.20
Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
> Yes. That is a great news. Sad that Ubuntu hasn't communicated with us
> to get this fixed on Debian. I'll take a look and prepare a parted
> upload with it.
>
I merged all relative dmraid Ubuntu changes in:
devmapper
os-prober
parted
partman-auto
partman-base
par
Giuseppe Iuculano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
>
>> We have two possible way to fix that. Change parted to use previous
>
> I think we have a third possible way, merge some good work from Ubuntu.
>
> For example, attached debdiff is an attempt to fix (p) naming issue (
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> That message looks to be the "Frans mode" to say: "I believe we should
> avoid this change at this release stage and try to revert parted
> change, leaving the dmraid change for post lenny".
No, what I meant was: proposing this change without
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
> > We have two possible way to fix that. Change parted to use previous
>
> I think we have a third possible way, merge some good work from Ubuntu.
>
> For example, attached debdiff is an attempt to fix (p) naming
Otavio Salvador ha scritto:
> We have two possible way to fix that. Change parted to use previous
I think we have a third possible way, merge some good work from Ubuntu.
For example, attached debdiff is an attempt to fix (p) naming issue (but not
fixes OOM, I must make /lib/partman/active_partit
Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>> On Saturday 06 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> I've done a look on dmraid and it looks simple to change. The attached
>>> patch should do that.
>>
>> Oh, wow! Yes!
>>
>> Let's make a change that's really dmraid upstream's bus
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 06 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Friday 05 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
It is indeed a change on libparted side however this is doing right
using the p here. Would be too hard to change partm
On Saturday 06 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday 05 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> It is indeed a change on libparted side however this is doing right
> >> using the p here. Would be too hard to change partman-dmraid to use
> >
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 05 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> It is indeed a change on libparted side however this is doing right
>> using the p here. Would be too hard to change partman-dmraid to use
>> it?
>
> The problem is not really partman-dmraid. The problem
On Friday 05 September 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> It is indeed a change on libparted side however this is doing right
> using the p here. Would be too hard to change partman-dmraid to use
> it?
The problem is not really partman-dmraid. The problem is that dmraid
itself also does NOT use or ex
Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I have done what I can here to identify the issues. From here on
> it is up to Jérémy and Otavio to actually fix the bugs that have been
> identified.
> I really do not know at this point whether that means reverting some change
> in libparted, or fi
On Friday 05 September 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> This is the ls -la after the first "Write changes in SATA RAID
> partitioning to disk" # ls -la /dev/mapper/
> drwxr-xr-x2 root root 160 Sep 5 08:33 .
> drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 2840 Sep 5 08:33 ..
> crw-rw
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> Giuseppe: if you want to work around this bug to test dmraid support, you
> can do so by changing /lib/partman/active_partition/25divider/choices
> before you start partman: just make that script 'exit 0'.
> This would allow you to provide further details on the "p" in creat
On Thursday 04 September 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> - partman does not build the fields correctly when the first (valid)
> option is a divider
Right. This problem is in partman-base/lib/base.sh in debconf_select().
This has:
descriptions="${descriptions:+${descriptions}, }$(
echo "${x#
On Tuesday 02 September 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Done, here the logs
> http://sd6.iuculano.it/dmraid-testing/log3.tar.gz
The last thing the log shows is that the "active_partition" dialog is
being prepared, which has the following "keys":
25divider__divider, 65toggle_bootable_
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> Unfortunately these don't help very much. What I think we need here is a
> full debug log for partman to see what was running at the time of the
> OOM. I suspect you somehow get into a loop.
>
> Please make sure you have started your ssh sessions _before_ starting
> par
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:54:45AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 30 August 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> > Comments/Problems:
> > I used a set of fakeraid qcow2 format disk images
> > (http://www.themuso.id.au/ubuntu/dmraid-empty-disks.tar.bz2), but boot
> > loader installation failed.
>
On Saturday 30 August 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> - First test
>
> Partition disk:
> http://sd6.iuculano.it/dmraid-testing/partman1-1.png
>
> Choose free space and create a new partition:
> http://sd6.iuculano.it/dmraid-testing/partman1-2.png
> http://sd6.iuculano.it/dmraid-testing/partman1-3.
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> But another possibility is that you are just not following the correct
> procedure. Support for dmraid is far from perfect and things will *only*
> work if you follow the documented procedure.
>
> How did you do the partitioning? Did you *exactly* follow the instructions
>
On Saturday 30 August 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> after partitioning:
>
> ~ # ls -la /dev/mapper
> drwxr-xr-x2 root root 140 Aug 30 13:17 .
> drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 2820 Aug 30 13:17 ..
> crw-rw1 root root 10, 60 Aug 30 13:11 control
> brw-
(No need to CC me on replies.)
On Saturday 30 August 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Frans Pop ha scritto:
> > First thing that needs to be determined is what exactly has changed
> > to add this "p". Is it a change in dmraid, or in libparted, or
> > elsewhere? When we know that we can check where
Frans Pop ha scritto:
> First thing that needs to be determined is what exactly has changed to add
> this "p". Is it a change in dmraid, or in libparted, or elsewhere?
> When we know that we can check where changes are needed.
> Do you have any idea yourself where this "p" comes from?
I don't kno
reassign 497110 partman-dmraid
severity 497110 serious
thanks
On Saturday 30 August 2008, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> Comments/Problems:
> I used a set of fakeraid qcow2 format disk images
> (http://www.themuso.id.au/ubuntu/dmraid-empty-disks.tar.bz2), but boot
> loader installation failed.
> It se
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 497110 partman-dmraid
Bug#497110: boot loader installation failed when dmraid=true
Bug reassigned from package `installation-reports' to `partman-dmraid'.
> severity 497110 serious
Bug#497110: boot loader installation failed
Package: installation-reports
Severity: normal
-- Package-specific info:
Boot method: CD
Image version:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/20080827-1/i386/iso-cd/debian-testing-i386-businesscard.iso
This build finished at Wed Aug 27 07:45:39 UTC 2008.
Date: Wed Aug 27 07:45:
39 matches
Mail list logo
