Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Moshe Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.23.2155 +0200]: > But even so, through some interaction, this particular kernel > update failed to go smoothly -- it left me in a state where > I could no longer boot up. yeah, this is bad. > >Why are you manually calling `mdadm --assemble`

Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread Moshe Yudkowsky
At 13:37 2005-05-23, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Moshe Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.23.1956 +0200]: > The reason I suspected it is because if mdadm.conf has /dev/md3 as the > device in its ARRAY statement, and I use the notation "mdadm --assemble > /dev/md/3", then mdadm wouldn't

Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Moshe Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.23.2136 +0200]: > ii initrd-tools 0.1.79 tools to create initrd image for > prepackaged > ii mdadm 1.9.0-2.1 Manage MD devices aka Linux Software Raid > > The new packages are: > > ii initrd-tools 0.1.80

Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread Moshe Yudkowsky
At 13:08 2005-05-23, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Moshe Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.23.1956 +0200]: > >Are you running udev on /dev? > > No, I haven't made the transition yet. I'm still running devfs. Oh dear. Yes, well, I can't find a coherent explanation of how to make the t

Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Moshe Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.23.1956 +0200]: > The reason I suspected it is because if mdadm.conf has /dev/md3 as the > device in its ARRAY statement, and I use the notation "mdadm --assemble > /dev/md/3", then mdadm wouldn't start. It couldn't translate between the >

Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Moshe Yudkowsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.23.1956 +0200]: > >Are you running udev on /dev? > > No, I haven't made the transition yet. I'm still running devfs. Oh dear. > >What was the last version of mdadm you had installed that worked? > > That'd be whatever the previous release

Bug#310412: More info on md problem

2005-05-23 Thread Moshe Yudkowsky
Steve, Martin, Thanks for writing. I'm going to answer your requests, and please keep those questions coming. Steve asks: Are you running udev on /dev? No, I haven't made the transition yet. I'm still running devfs. What was the last version of mdadm you had installed that worked? That