On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 01:28:32PM +0200, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> Doesn't work in addition to nfs-common 1.1.0-9.
What does your fstab look like? What messages do you get during boot?
(I'm taking this off debian-devel from here on; it doesn't make sense to keep
debugging there.)
/* Steinar *
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 the mental interface of
Steinar H. Gunderson told:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 06:17:13PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I'm not all that interested in what the right long-term fix is, I'm
> > concerned about a change in nfs-common breaking something semi essential
> > that has wo
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:31:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 July 2007 22:57, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > vorlon: Any opinion on #433119? As it is now, this would affect
> > > testing too as soon as nfs-utils is old enough.
> > > fjp: get the release team to block the package unti
On Saturday 14 July 2007 22:57, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > vorlon: Any opinion on #433119? As it is now, this would affect
> > testing too as soon as nfs-utils is old enough.
> > fjp: get the release team to block the package until
> > sysvinit is fixed?
>
> Ahem, "RW". If you must resort to inv
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 08:30:31PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 July 2007 20:09, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > Good. initscript maintainers: I intend to NMU with this patch (and this
> > patch alone, except for changelog changes), as per the standard NMU
> > policy with a week's dela
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 09:54:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> IMO if an upload of a package is the direct cause of serious breakage,
> then, even if the actual bug is in another package, the maintainer needs
> to take responsibility for getting that breakage fixed _before_ allowing
> his package
On Saturday 14 July 2007 20:45, you wrote:
> If it's really a problem for you, you can always download the previous
> version of the package and keep it on hold until the bug is fixed.
>
> This is unstable, after all.
Of course. I know that.
The whole point of the conversation (and my taking it t
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 06:17:13PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> If something like that is reported, IMHO the only correct course of action
> is first to make sure that the breakage is fixed,
No matter what? I disagree. The correct fix should be implemented,
rather than an ugly hackish fix. If you do
clone 433119 -1
reassign -1 nfs-common 1:1.1.0-8
block -1 with 433119
tags -1 - patch
severity -1 grave
thanks
On Saturday 14 July 2007 20:09, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> Good. initscript maintainers: I intend to NMU with this patch (and this
> patch alone, except for changelog changes), as per
tags 433119 + patch
thanks
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>> I'm a bit unsure why this suddenly started going to debian-devel; I'm
>> Cc-ing the bug again, at least.
> Because I CCed it there, but you only replied to d-devel :-)
OK, my bad.
>> Try this patch:
> The pa
On Saturday 14 July 2007 18:46, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I'm a bit unsure why this suddenly started going to debian-devel; I'm
> Cc-ing the bug again, at least.
Because I CCed it there, but you only replied to d-devel :-)
> The question here is: When initscripts is broken, and a new version
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 06:17:13PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I'm not all that interested in what the right long-term fix is, I'm
> concerned about a change in nfs-common breaking something semi essential
> that has worked for ages, accidentally or not.
I'm a bit unsure why this suddenly started
On Saturday 14 July 2007 17:46, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 05:37:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Please revert this breakage! just Passing it off to initscripts does
> > not seem like the right solution here.
>
> I don't really understand you here. Mounting NFS volumes w
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 05:37:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Shouldn't the relevant change be delayed until initscripts _does_ support
> this then? And after that nfs-common should be given a proper versioned
> dependency before activating the change?
It was not discovered before after-the-fact,
On Saturday 14 July 2007 17:16, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 04:53:54PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Since the upgrade from 1:1.1.0-6, my system no longer mounts an NFS
> > volume listed in my /etc/fstab during system boot (I did no other
> > relevant upgrades that day). It
15 matches
Mail list logo
