Re: Consolidating our mkinitcpio hooks
Yo, We have merged a couple of hooks from packages with the intent to release mkinitcpio v38 this month. This is going to move several hooks from packages to mkinitcpio proper. The relevant hooks: * lvm2 * mdmadm * sd-encrypt and encrypt * systemd For the update itself I'm pondering if we should try to not break peoples systems by accident. So I have two proposals on how we should deal with this upgrade: # First proposal To ensure we are not breaking systems I'm wondering if adding a `mkinitcpio>=38` dependency to all the affected packages would work. This would be a temporary measure and removed after a month (or something). * systemd * mdadm * lvm2 * cryptsetup # Second proposal Alternatively we do not such thing, and release everything into the stable repositories at the same time. Then write a news entry warning about partial updates with the mentioned packages and `mkinitcpio`. Any preferences here? I'm wondering if adding a hard dependency in `systemd` on `mkinitcpio` might seem innocent would be a bit problematic? Relevant pull-requests: # lvm2 https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/mkinitcpio/mkinitcpio/-/merge_requests/299 # mdadm https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/mkinitcpio/mkinitcpio/-/merge_requests/301 # cryptsetup https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/mkinitcpio/mkinitcpio/-/merge_requests/262 # systemd https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/mkinitcpio/mkinitcpio/-/merge_requests/263 -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Consolidating our mkinitcpio hooks
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 4:10 PM Morten Linderud wrote: > # First proposal > > To ensure we are not breaking systems I'm wondering if adding a > `mkinitcpio>=38` > dependency to all the affected packages would work. This would be a > temporary > measure and removed after a month (or something). > > * systemd > * mdadm > * lvm2 > * cryptsetup > I think conflicts would be more appropriate here. If you make the new systemd etc. conflict with the old mkinitcpio<38 and make the new mkinitcpio conflict with the old systemd etc., then this would ensure you can't get stuck without the hooks, but it won't force installation of mkinitcpio.
Re: Consolidating our mkinitcpio hooks
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 04:19:13PM +0100, Jan Alexander Steffens (heftig) wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 4:10 PM Morten Linderud > wrote: > > > # First proposal > > > > To ensure we are not breaking systems I'm wondering if adding a > > `mkinitcpio>=38` > > dependency to all the affected packages would work. This would be a > > temporary > > measure and removed after a month (or something). > > > > * systemd > > * mdadm > > * lvm2 > > * cryptsetup > > > > I think conflicts would be more appropriate here. If you make the new > systemd etc. conflict with the old mkinitcpio<38 and make the new mkinitcpio > conflict with the old systemd etc., then this would ensure you can't get > stuck > without the hooks, but it won't force installation of mkinitcpio. Love it, this is a much better idea then what I had in mind :) -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
