feedback sought on mdadm sarge->etch upgrade strategy

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Marco d'Itri <md at Linux.IT> [2006.08.14.1635 +0100]:
> devfs does not matter, it's not supported by etch anyway.

Is this official? Please point me somewhere. I seem to recall we do
support 2.4 kernels and those still have devfs, right?

> >      - creates symlink from /dev/mdX to /dev/md/X if started as
> >        /dev/md/X
> 
> This more or less negates most reasons for using /dev/md/.
> And if something should create symlinks in /dev it should be udev.

The feature can be turned off, and as soon as I manage to get
reproducible and reliable behaviour from udev, I will.

Do note, however, that it seems that udev creates these symlinks
already if I create a /dev/md/X device.

You noted in another email that /dev/md/X has to be supported
"because people like it". Well, so be it. We don't support /dev/hd/X
or /dev/sd/X, so I don't really see a reason why I should support
/dev/md/X anymore, unless I have to cater for devfs.

I'd prefer to make /dev/mdX default and support only that. If people
want /dev/md/X, they can configure it. But it adds amazing
complexity to gracefully handle both situations.

-- 
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
"a mac is like a prostitute. sure they look good,
 but your wallet will feel a lot lighter after getting one."
                                                -- psychonate on irc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mdadm-devel/attachments/20060814/db84504d/attachment.pgp