Thanks Chris,
I'll take a look at it in the coming days!
Best,
--
Jerome
On 12/17/2014 11:03 PM, Chris Boot wrote:
On 17 Dec 2014, at 21:11, Chris Boot wrote:
On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:56, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On 10/07/2014 03:54 PM, Jerome Martin wrote:
On 10/07/2014 12:21 PM, Ritesh
On 17 Dec 2014, at 21:11, Chris Boot wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:56, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2014 03:54 PM, Jerome Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2014 12:21 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 03:49 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Okay!!
On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:56, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2014 03:54 PM, Jerome Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/2014 12:21 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 03:49 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Okay!! Thanks to both of you. I will prepare something next week
On 10/07/2014 03:54 PM, Jerome Martin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/07/2014 12:21 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 03:49 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>>> Okay!! Thanks to both of you. I will prepare something next week. My
>>> only request is if (other) users can test it in time.
>>
Control: tag -1 help
Right now I'm occupied with personal commitments. If anyone is willing
to help, please do. NMUs welcome too. If you'd like to co-maintain,
please send me a request on Alioth.
https://alioth.debian.org/projects/linux-target
There are 2 parts to this bug.
1. Upgrade issues. I
Control: severity -1 serious
This is a regression, and breaks upgrading systems using targetcli for
storage. It's RC.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B
On 11/16/2014 04:02 PM, Chris Boot wrote:
> Hi Ritesh,
>
> Things do indeed seem better now, but still not quite right… Leaving my
> existing configuration loaded (by manually preventing the lio-utils
> postrm script from stopping the targets) and upgrading targetcli gives
> me the following now in
[ adding CCs I missed when I replied ]
> On 5 Nov 2014, at 09:55, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>
> Hello Chris,
>
> On 10/08/2014 01:09 AM, Chris Boot wrote:
>> I won't reset it, but the bug report covered other points that make
>> targetcli unusable for me at the moment even ignoring the upgrade i
Hello Chris,
On 10/08/2014 01:09 AM, Chris Boot wrote:
> I won't reset it, but the bug report covered other points that make
> targetcli unusable for me at the moment even ignoring the upgrade issue.
I will try to resolve all the major issues. But I am not going to be
looking into the upgrade iss
On 07/10/2014 10:19, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important
>
>
> @Chris: Are you okay if I downgrade this? With severity grave it will be
> a candidate for removal. I understand the data loss situation during
> upgrades, but for users deploying it fresh, it is a non-issue.
>
On 10/07/2014 12:21 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 03:49 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Okay!! Thanks to both of you. I will prepare something next week. My
only request is if (other) users can test it in time.
By the way, Jerome, do you still plan on a newer release
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 03:49 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Okay!! Thanks to both of you. I will prepare something next week. My
only request is if (other) users can test it in time.
By the way, Jerome, do you still plan on a newer release of the LIO
stack ? Or is this, the one I pushed to
Okay!! Thanks to both of you. I will prepare something next week. My
only request is if (other) users can test it in time.
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 03:32 PM, Jerome Martin wrote:
Hi Chris et al.,
On 10/05/2014 05:45 PM, Chris Boot wrote:
From my perspective, it would be nice to keep the old
Hi Chris et al.,
On 10/05/2014 05:45 PM, Chris Boot wrote:
From my perspective, it would be nice to keep the old tcm_node and lio_node
tools around. I know that they are deprecated but there are a lot of tools
around that rely on them.
Do you have any particular examples of such tools?
Are
Control: severity -1 important
@Chris: Are you okay if I downgrade this? With severity grave it will be
a candidate for removal. I understand the data loss situation during
upgrades, but for users deploying it fresh, it is a non-issue.
Please reset to grave if you disagree. My intent is to h
Hi,
From my perspective, it would be nice to keep the old tcm_node and lio_node
tools around. I know that they are deprecated but there are a lot of tools
around that rely on them.
The migration from the lio-utils to targetcli startup scripts could possibly be
done by removing the init script
One more thought...
I think the Debian way would be to have a transition package containing
lio-utils, and modify the initscript to account for it.
The initscript would check on first start if we are in an upgrade
scenario (no new config, an old lio-utils config present), invoke the
transiti
On 10/05/2014 09:37 AM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Thanks for the bug report.
Jerome: How can we ensure to have the old 2.x settings / targets in 3.x ?
Manually, this is easy.
But to automate package upgrade is bit of a brain-twister.
I haven't found yet a good way to do it.
Basically, the con
Thanks for the bug report.
Jerome: How can we ensure to have the old 2.x settings / targets in 3.x ?
On Saturday 04 October 2014 11:00 PM, Chris Boot wrote:
Package: targetcli
Version: 3.0+git0.7e32595e-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
The upgrade fr
Package: targetcli
Version: 3.0+git0.7e32595e-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
The upgrade from targetcli 2.1-1 removes all targets and makes targetcli
unusable.
1. Removing lio-utils disables/removes all targets from the kernel. This is a
serious pro
20 matches
Mail list logo
