On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 15:46 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 08/04/13 13:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On 08-04-13 08:53, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> I'm not suggesting that squeeze systems were installed that way by
> >> default, although people who have migrated an FS from a raw partition
> >> to
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 17:15 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> So it seems that this is only going to be an issue if users take the
> unusual step of changing /etc/fstab to refer to LVs by UUID. But
> maybe there are management tools that do that as a matter of course?
I vaguely recall the occasio
On 08/04/13 13:53, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 08-04-13 08:53, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting that squeeze systems were installed that way by
>> default, although people who have migrated an FS from a raw partition
>> to an LV may have this in fstab.
> And that fact alone makes it a non
On 08-04-13 08:53, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that squeeze systems were installed that way by
> default, although people who have migrated an FS from a raw partition
> to an LV may have this in fstab.
And that fact alone makes it a non-RC bug -- if it's even a bug at all.
Changing
On 04/07/2013 10:46 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
> The only reason to escalate the issue to
> debian-devel is because you're trying to overrule the maintainers.
Once more, I'd say... :/
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/04/13 18:15, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 16:19 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> On 07/04/13 15:47, Neil Williams wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:25:43 +0200 Daniel Pocock
>>> wrote:
>>>
I notice this bug was downgrade
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> So it seems that this is only going to be an issue if users take the
> unusual step of changing /etc/fstab to refer to LVs by UUID. But maybe
> there are management tools that do that as a matter of course?
One should never use UUIDs in fstab to refer t
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 04:01:25PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> UUIDs are used by default AFAICS when the installer creates the
> fstab, and should work just fine. Just looking and I don't have
> an example system which uses UUIDs /and/ LVM root, however--this
> does not appear to be the default f
On Sun, 2013-04-07 at 16:19 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 07/04/13 15:47, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:25:43 +0200 Daniel Pocock
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I notice this bug was downgraded below the RC threshold and
> >> appears to have been missed so far:
> >
> > It was only push
Roger Leigh (07/04/2013):
> UUIDs are used by default AFAICS when the installer creates the
> fstab, and should work just fine. Just looking and I don't have
> an example system which uses UUIDs /and/ LVM root, however--this
> does not appear to be the default for LVM. While this is an
> importa
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/04/13 15:47, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:25:43 +0200 Daniel Pocock
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I notice this bug was downgraded below the RC threshold and
> >>
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:19:15 +0200
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 07/04/13 15:47, Neil Williams wrote:
> > It was only pushed to RC status by your request and then almost
> > immediately moved back to original severity of Important by one of
> > the maintainers.
> >
> > It is up to the maintainers t
On 04/07/2013 10:19 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 07/04/13 15:47, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:25:43 +0200 Daniel Pocock
wrote:
I notice this bug was downgraded below the RC threshold and appears to
have been missed so far:
It was only pushed to RC status by your request and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/04/13 15:47, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:25:43 +0200 Daniel Pocock
> wrote:
>
>> I notice this bug was downgraded below the RC threshold and
>> appears to have been missed so far:
>
> It was only pushed to RC status by your
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:25:43 +0200
Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I notice this bug was downgraded below the RC threshold and appears to
> have been missed so far:
It was only pushed to RC status by your request and then almost
immediately moved back to original severity of Important by one of the
maint
15 matches
Mail list logo