On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 11:23 +0100, Radek Vykydal wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 11:28 +0100, Radek Vykydal wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, my concern is a fix to appear in 64-md-raid.rules we use in F11.
> >> I sent the patch to Harald Hoyer, he applied the patch to fedora udev
> >> package, udev upstream applied it (modified), and it will
> >> appear in udev-138 package. So, taking the rules file from mdadm
> >> package, we need to use mdadm upstream having rules file
> >> from udev-138, or use patched rules file from udev package.
> >>
> >
> > This means that mdadm and udev-138 will have a file conflict. If it's
> > already in udev, I'll just remove it from mdadm.
> >
> They won't, because udev stores it's rule files in /lib/udev/rules.d,
> whereas mdadm
> (and packages generally, if I got it right) in /etc/udev/rules.d (they
> have precedence
> in case of same name).
Well, that still means the not-as-up2date version would get used over
the fixed version. So, like I said, I'm removing the existing udev
rules file in deference to the one in udev, and I've restored the old
70-mdadm rules file that implemented the incremental assembly since the
udev file I saw does *not* initiate incremental assembly itself. I
have, however, removed the --auto=yes from the incremental assembly rule
since the current 64-mdadm rules file will read the array info and
create the appropriate links via udev, so mdadm no longer needs to do
so. I'm trying to get the build through the build system, but it's
randomly failing to find libc during the link stage for some reason :-/
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
