[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ha-dev
Subject:    Re: [Linux-ha-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Medium: LVM: force dmevent
From:       Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb () suse ! com>
Date:       2011-12-01 0:21:22
Message-ID: 20111201002122.GI3810 () suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2011-11-28T21:14:22, Florian Haas <florian@hastexo.com> wrote:

> > Seems to make sense. of course, an alternative would be to add a
> > "Conflicts: lvm2 < x.y.z" to the package on the respective versions to
> > make sure it's only installed with a fixed lvm2 package ...?
> Surely you're joking. resource-agents does not enforce any packaging
> dependencies for the stuff it's capable of managing, so why throw in a
> random conflict here?

It makes sense to conflict with versions that are so old that they are
no longer supported or have known bugs. Note that that is different from
requiring a specific version to be installed.

Alternatively, the respective RA could do such a check itself. But a
work-around (like implemented here) is fine by me too.

> Of course, we probably wouldn't have this version issue if the LVM RA
> was packaged with LVM,

That wouldn't really solve it; it'd still require users to update the
LVM package, or to patch that accordingly if they can't update the main
aspects.

> but someone shot down that suggestion. Who was that, I wonder? I'm
> thinking, I'm thinking... nevermind, it'll come to me.

Maybe then you'll also find a way of not being passive-aggressive? ;-)


Regards,
    Lars

-- =

Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffe=
r, HRB 21284 (AG N=FCrnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde

_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]