Bug#787666: multipath-tools: discussion about devname of mpath[0-9]+ vs. mpath[a-z]+

Ritesh Raj Sarraf rrs at researchut.com
Tue Jun 9 10:41:09 UTC 2015

On Thursday 04 June 2015 03:36 AM, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Ritesh,
> Regarding the option for Debian to stay on devnames like mpath[0-9]+
> rather than that adopted upstream, mpath[a-z]+ (patch 0002)..
> Do you mind explaining to me if there's any particular reasons for that?
> Or how (un)likely is it to switch over to upstream? (I'd know of one
> point, that is Jessie using the old number-suffix).

Can you please give me some more context here ?
I'm trying to minimize any extra patches, so that we are less deviated
from upstream.  The current set of patches carried, are either trivial
ones or important for Debian for other dependency reasons.

> Another point is, if that doesn't change, is it possible in the mean
> time to move patch 0002 to the end of the series, and add support for
> alias_prefix [1], so to ease the addition of upstream/backport patches
> (i.e., before the last patch in the series)?

By 0002, you mean
That patch is no more in use. It was dropped long ago.

Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lvm-maintainers/attachments/20150609/dbff8ca0/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the pkg-lvm-maintainers mailing list