On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 09:52:53 +0200 Paul Muster wrote: > Dear Michael, > > thanks for clarifying the situation.
Dear Michael, first of all, I would like to join Paul in thanking you for your helpful explanations. I am too experiencing this same issue (bug #784070): after unplugging one drive (in order to test a RAID1 setup), the machine fails to boot and drops me to an initramfs shell. > > > serverfault solution isn't exactly wrong, it is incomplete, it > > does not cover a situation when you have slow-to-appear devices. > > This solution, however, fixes the problem in this bugreport, > > a problem which I introduced when I tried to address the problem > > with slow-to-appear devices. Ofcourse it is better to be able > > to boot from a degraded raid than to be able to boot from slow > > devices, esp. since the latter had a workaround. So in this > > sense, serverfault solution will fix _this_ bug. > > so, couldn't you patch the package to fix the problem for all people > that do not have "slow-to-appear devices"? I would also like to encourage you to implement what you think is the best solution for this really annoying bug. > > > > But I also dislike doing work which is being thrown away by others, > > since this is a pure waste of time/energy, and time is a very scarse > > resource. I don't want to do any work if I know this work will be > > thrown away, and here, debian-installer people did throw my work > > a) without a good reason and b) without actual rights for that. > > Of course what you describe is extremely disappointing for you. Since I > don't know what exactly happened: There should be a decision committee > which listens to both sides and decides _for Debian_. Michael, I am not sure I understand what happened: I don't see any recent NMUs for package mdadm, hence I cannot see how d-i developers could "throw your work away". Anyway, the last resort strategy to address your disagreement with the d-i developers could be referring it to the technical committee, as Paul seems to suggest... But, before doing so, I would try hard to talk to the d-i developers and solve the disagreement in the most amicable way. > > > So I stopped maintaining all software which is related to debian-installer, > > because now I know it is just a waste of time. As simple as that, and > > there's nothing like dislike of someone in there, there's nothing > > personal. > > It's not obvious to me why a bug in mdadm can't be fixed because there > is a conflict with the d-i maintainers. Why can d-i maintainers decide > about mdadm? > > > In short, I don't maintain mdadm anymore, so there's no reason to > > ask me about it. > > That would be very sad because it's a really important package. Michael, I really hope you reconsider this decision, because we really need a good and active mdadm package maintainer. Otherwise, if you are absolutely unwilling to continue maintaining the mdadm Debian package (as I said, I hope you reconsider!), then I think you should officially search for someone willing to adopt the package... Thanks for your time! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpuPVHIXJQDy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
