On Mar 15, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 17:44, Colin Watson wrote:
Personally I also feel that all possible solutions effectively make
/etc/fstab unreadable and unmaintainable.
The approach we took in Ubuntu was to put comments above each UUID
entry in /etc/fs
On Thursday 15 March 2007 17:44, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Personally I also feel that all possible solutions effectively make
> > /etc/fstab unreadable and unmaintainable.
>
> The approach we took in Ubuntu was to put comments above each UUID
> entry in /etc/fstab documenting which traditional devic
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:22:03PM -, peter green wrote:
> for most users fstab has always identified by rough position (e.g.
> hda=ide primary master), changing to a system based on partition IDs
> would mean a lot of relearning for admins (e.g. its no longer ok to
> backup a partition by ddi
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:49:02PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Colin has said a few times that he consideres the Ubuntu solution not
> clean enough for Debian.
If I said that I misspoke; I only meant that it's not settled enough for
Etch at this point. As I indicated on #debian-boot yesterday, I do
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:19:11AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Someone which uses scsi-over-fc have much better identification, the wwnn,
> > which is used in by-id:
> So it's used in by-id, but not in by-path, right? Hence this is still an
> argument against by-path.
No, similar identifiers
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:56:39AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:57:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > >, it changes if you change the SCSI/IDE bus address
> > > > of the drive
> > > the same applied in the old hd? and sd? days, drives names changing when
> > > you c
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:57:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > >, it changes if you change the SCSI/IDE bus address
> > > of the drive
> > the same applied in the old hd? and sd? days, drives names changing when
> > you change thier IDE/SCSI ids is something admins expect and are used to.
> Um
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:22:03PM -, peter green wrote:
> > That it's not a persistent means of identifying a filesystem.
> for most users fstab has always identified by rough position (e.g. hda=ide
> primary master), changing to a system based on partition IDs would mean a
> lot of relearn
> That it's not a persistent means of identifying a filesystem.
for most users fstab has always identified by rough position (e.g. hda=ide
primary master), changing to a system based on partition IDs would mean a lot
of relearning for admins (e.g. its no longer ok to backup a partition by ddin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 09:05:31PM -, peter green wrote:
> > Personally I also feel that all possible solutions effectively make
> > /etc/fstab unreadable and unmaintainable. Maybe Debian should
> > lead the way
> > to make /etc/fstab a generated file (like e.g. modules.conf used to be).
> w
> Personally I also feel that all possible solutions effectively make
> /etc/fstab unreadable and unmaintainable. Maybe Debian should
> lead the way
> to make /etc/fstab a generated file (like e.g. modules.conf used to be).
what is so bad about /dev/disk/by-path/pci-:00:07.1-ide-0:0-part1 ?
Frans Pop wrote:
> I will not deny that users _can_ hit this issue, but it has been a known
> issue since Sarge. Unfortunately no one has yet been able to help us find
> a "good enough for Debian" solution for this.
...
> Personally I also feel that all possible solutions effectively make
> /etc/
On Tuesday 06 March 2007 11:34, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> - User boots off USB stick
> - sda is USB, sdb is SCSI or SATA
> - GRUB install on (hd0) (i.e. sda) fails.
> - Manual repairing is not possible, because if you boot a rescue
> system off USB stick, root disk will still be sdb
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:21:05AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> + uuid="$(PATH="/lib/udev:$PATH" vol_id -u $fs)"
> + if [ "$uuid" ]; then
> + printf "# %s\n" "$(mapdevfs $fs)"
> + printf "%-15s %-15s %-7s %-15s %-7s %s\n" "UUID=$uuid"
> "${mp
> UUIDs certainly have their disadvantages (verbosity being the main one),
> but they're a hell of a lot better than labels for automatic use like
> this. UUIDs are suitable for automatic generation while labels should
> only be set by the sysadmin. The fiasco with Red Hat's installer setting
> la
David Härdeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, March 8, 2007 13:55, Otavio Salvador said:
>> To full support it, another change would be need on Parted IIRC. You
>> reported the patch for it but I hadn't applied yet since we weren't
>> using it that time.
>
> Do you have a link? The fstab th
On Thu, March 8, 2007 13:55, Otavio Salvador said:
> To full support it, another change would be need on Parted IIRC. You
> reported the patch for it but I hadn't applied yet since we weren't
> using it that time.
Do you have a link? The fstab things should take place well after the
partitioning s
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:44:05AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
>> I've attached a patch which implements persistent device names in
>> partman by checking for devices which are mounted under /target and
>> which have a suitable link in /dev/disk/by-id/
On Thu, March 8, 2007 12:32, Colin Watson said:
> UUIDs certainly have their disadvantages (verbosity being the main one),
> but they're a hell of a lot better than labels for automatic use like
> this. UUIDs are suitable for automatic generation while labels should
> only be set by the sysadmin. T
I took the liberty of trimming the CC list since the details of a
persistent device node script would probably not interest everyone...
On Thu, March 8, 2007 12:21, Colin Watson said:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:44:05AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
>> I've attached a patch which implements persis
Oh, at least one additional thing that's likely needed in this scenario
is the attached patch to make busybox's mkswap generate UUIDs.
* util-linux/mkswap.c: Set UUIDs on version 1 swap areas.
* util-linux/Makefile.in: mkswap needs uuid/uuid.h from e2fsprogs.
* e2fsprogs/Makefile.in: Build l
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:44:05AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
> I've attached a patch which implements persistent device names in
> partman by checking for devices which are mounted under /target and
> which have a suitable link in /dev/disk/by-id/*
I've attached the Ubuntu patch for the same
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:03:35PM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:55:45AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > I don't know how invasive those changes might be. AFAIK Ubuntu already
> > does it (Colin?) and wouldn't be too hard to pick the changes from
> > them but
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:28:09PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> Is this theoretical with SATA, or have you reproduced it?
I've only reproduced it for SCSI.
> The usb sticks include sata-modules as well as usb-modules, so AFAICS,
> hardware detection should happen in the same order when booting fr
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:09:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> I don't believe this should be changed for etch at this point in the release
> process, and that's speaking as someone who's run into this problem myself
> with SCSI device renumbering -- it's awkward and annoying to have to
> man
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:09:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:44:05AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
I've attached a patch which implements persistent device names in
partman by checking for devices which are mounted under /target and
which have a suitable link in /de
> I don't believe this should be changed for etch at this point in
> the release
> process, and that's speaking as someone who's run into this problem myself
> with SCSI device renumbering -- it's awkward and annoying to have to
> manually fiddle your boot config because a USB device is no longer
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:44:05AM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
> >initramfs-tools already supports using /dev/disk/by-* entries in fstab. As
> >for the installer, I'm not sure that looking at Ubuntu will help since
> >they use something different than d-i for the regular installs (and I
> >don't k
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:18:19PM +0100, David Härdeman wrote:
On Wed, March 7, 2007 13:55, Otavio Salvador said:
I don't know how invasive those changes might be. AFAIK Ubuntu already
does it (Colin?) and wouldn't be too hard to pick the changes from
them but we would also need RM and Frans ap
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:28:09PM -0500, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> > I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another
> > situation
> > that makes it much worse:
> >
> > - User boots off USB stick
> > - sda is USB, sdb is SCSI
Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another situation
> that makes it much worse:
>
> - User boots off USB stick
> - sda is USB, sdb is SCSI or SATA
> - GRUB install on (hd0) (i.e. sda) fails.
> - Manual repairing is not possible, b
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:50:46AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> "peter green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I don't know how invasive those changes might be. AFAIK Ubuntu already
> >> does it (Colin?) and wouldn't be too hard to pick the changes from
> >> them but we would also need RM and
On Wed, March 7, 2007 13:55, Otavio Salvador said:
> I don't know how invasive those changes might be. AFAIK Ubuntu already
> does it (Colin?) and wouldn't be too hard to pick the changes from
> them but we would also need RM and Frans approval :(
initramfs-tools already supports using /dev/disk/b
"peter green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't know how invasive those changes might be. AFAIK Ubuntu already
>> does it (Colin?) and wouldn't be too hard to pick the changes from
>> them but we would also need RM and Frans approval :(
> ubuntu already does what? there are four possible sol
> I don't know how invasive those changes might be. AFAIK Ubuntu already
> does it (Colin?) and wouldn't be too hard to pick the changes from
> them but we would also need RM and Frans approval :(
ubuntu already does what? there are four possible soloutions proposed aren't
there (labels in fstab
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:55:45AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >
> > With USB, you can't just boot a rescue system and repair a broken install
> > from there, because /dev/sda will still be your USB drive.
> >
> > Of course, there are lots of hacks you can do to workaround that, but if
> > we g
"Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:55:45AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >
>> > With USB, you can't just boot a rescue system and repair a broken install
>> > from there, because /dev/sda will still be your USB drive.
>> >
>> > Of course, there a
> > by-uuid contains my two ext3 partitions but not my swap
> partition, it also seems like it may be vulnerable to becoming confused.
>
> Only if the admin is a moron and keeps around multiple file systems
> cloned with dd.
are you calling it moronic to make a backup of a partition by dding to t
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:33:47AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:44:31AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL
"Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:33:47AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:44:31AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) write
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Robert Millan [ackstorm] wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:05:09PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Mar 07, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Labels are not well tested and a source of problems indeed.
> > The /dev/disk/by-
"Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:44:31AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>>
>> > On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I urge you to reconsider severity of this probl
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:05:09PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 07, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Labels are not well tested and a source of problems indeed.
> The /dev/disk/by-*/ devices are well tested and I do not know about
> problems posed by them.
I thou
On Mar 07, peter green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> by-uuid contains my two ext3 partitions but not my swap partition, it also
> seems like it may be vulnerable to becoming confused.
Only if the admin is a moron and keeps around multiple file systems
cloned with dd.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marco d'Itri [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 07 March 2007 11:05
> To: Robert Millan [ackstorm]
> Cc: Mike Hommey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-release@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Bug#389881: RC-ness of this bug
>
>
> On
On Mar 07, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Labels are not well tested and a source of problems indeed.
The /dev/disk/by-*/ devices are well tested and I do not know about
problems posed by them.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:44:31AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
> > On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another
> >> situation
> >> that makes it much wo
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 04:41:19PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:15:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another
> > > situation
> > > tha
> > > I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's
> another situation
> > > that makes it much worse:
> > The correct solution is to make d-i use labels in fstab and to find the
> > root file system. udev has not much to do with this.
>
> Which will enable a whole lot of other br
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:15:23PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another
> > situation
> > that makes it much worse:
> The correct solution is to make d-i use labels i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another situation
>> that makes it much worse:
> The correct solution is to make d-i use labels in fstab and to find the
> ro
On Mar 06, "Robert Millan [ackstorm]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another situation
> that makes it much worse:
The correct solution is to make d-i use labels in fstab and to find the
root file system. udev has not much to do with this.
Hi,
I urge you to reconsider severity of this problem. There's another situation
that makes it much worse:
- User boots off USB stick
- sda is USB, sdb is SCSI or SATA
- GRUB install on (hd0) (i.e. sda) fails.
- Manual repairing is not possible, because if you boot a rescue system
o
53 matches
Mail list logo
