Your message dated Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:31:59 +0000
with message-id <20161231153159.gt20...@riva.ucam.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#735935: grub2: LVM trouble at boot with several PVs
has caused the Debian Bug report #735935,
regarding grub2: LVM trouble at boot with several PVs
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
735935: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735935
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: grub-pc
Version: 2.02~beta2-7
Severity: normal
Having run into #612402, I investigated.
The system's fstab contained:
/dev/mapper/vg_cac-root_cac / ext4 errors=remount-ro 0 1
So that was not the cause of the UUID being passed to grub.
The probing that is done in 10_linux finds lvm:
+ /usr/sbin/grub-probe --device /dev/mapper/vg_cac-root_cac --target=abstraction
+ abstraction=lvm
+ test xlvm = xlvm
Note the extra whitespace in the above. This is the source of at least
this manifestation of the bug.
root@clam:/boot>if [ "$(/usr/sbin/grub-probe --device
/dev/mapper/vg_cac-root_cac --target=abstraction)" = "lvm" ]; then echo good; fi
root@clam:/boot>if [ "$(/usr/sbin/grub-probe --device
/dev/mapper/vg_cac-root_cac --target=abstraction)" = "lvm " ]; then echo buggy;
fi
buggy
grub-probe is outputting a whitespace delimited list, but the for loop
in uses_abstraction sets IFS to newline.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:45:36PM -0300, Iván Baldo wrote:
> This bug should be closed, I think it appears as open?
Indeed. It was reopened with a request to fix it in wheezy, but that's
frankly rather unlikely at this point (I didn't notice the reopening at
the time, over two years ago ...), and at any rate shouldn't cause the
bug to appear as open. Re-closing with this message.
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
--- End Message ---
