Bug#784070: is it maybe possible to settle dislikings and fix this bug?

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 09:52:53 +0200 Paul Muster wrote:

> Dear Michael,
> 
> thanks for clarifying the situation.

Dear Michael,
first of all, I would like to join Paul in thanking you for your
helpful explanations.

I am too experiencing this same issue (bug #784070): after unplugging
one drive (in order to test a RAID1 setup), the machine fails to boot
and drops me to an initramfs shell.

> 
> > serverfault solution isn't exactly wrong, it is incomplete, it
> > does not cover a situation when you have slow-to-appear devices.
> > This solution, however, fixes the problem in this bugreport,
> > a problem which I introduced when I tried to address the problem
> > with slow-to-appear devices.  Ofcourse it is better to be able
> > to boot from a degraded raid than to be able to boot from slow
> > devices, esp. since the latter had a workaround.  So in this
> > sense, serverfault solution will fix _this_ bug.
> 
> so, couldn't you patch the package to fix the problem for all people
> that do not have "slow-to-appear devices"?

I would also like to encourage you to implement what you think is the
best solution for this really annoying bug.

> 
> 
> > But I also dislike doing work which is being thrown away by others,
> > since this is a pure waste of time/energy, and time is a very scarse
> > resource.  I don't want to do any work if I know this work will be
> > thrown away, and here, debian-installer people did throw my work
> > a) without a good reason and b) without actual rights for that.
> 
> Of course what you describe is extremely disappointing for you. Since I
> don't know what exactly happened: There should be a decision committee
> which listens to both sides and decides _for Debian_.

Michael, I am not sure I understand what happened: I don't see any
recent NMUs for package mdadm, hence I cannot see how d-i developers
could "throw your work away".

Anyway, the last resort strategy to address your disagreement with the
d-i developers could be referring it to the technical committee, as
Paul seems to suggest...
But, before doing so, I would try hard to talk to the d-i developers
and solve the disagreement in the most amicable way.

> 
> > So I stopped maintaining all software which is related to debian-installer,
> > because now I know it is just a waste of time.  As simple as that, and
> > there's nothing like dislike of someone in there, there's nothing
> > personal.
> 
> It's not obvious to me why a bug in mdadm can't be fixed because there
> is a conflict with the d-i maintainers. Why can d-i maintainers decide
> about mdadm?
> 
> > In short, I don't maintain mdadm anymore, so there's no reason to
> > ask me about it.
> 
> That would be very sad because it's a really important package.

Michael, I really hope you reconsider this decision, because we really
need a good and active mdadm package maintainer.

Otherwise, if you are absolutely unwilling to continue maintaining the
mdadm Debian package (as I said, I hope you reconsider!), then I think
you should officially search for someone willing to adopt the package...


Thanks for your time!


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mdadm-devel/attachments/20151006/0c2914aa/attachment.sig>