Please merge mdadm 3.1.4-1 (main) from Debian stable (main)

Bug #603582 reported by Surbhi Palande on 2010-07-09
This bug affects 31 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
mdadm (Ubuntu)
Nominated for Maverick by Surbhi Palande
Nominated for Natty by Surbhi Palande

Bug Description

Binary package hint: mdadm

Debian's mdadm in the unstable repository is at 3.1.2 whereas mavericks mdadm is at 2.7.1-1. Requesting to merge maverick's mdadm with the debian's version.

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) on 2010-07-09
Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → Surbhi Palande (csurbhi)
status: New → In Progress
description: updated
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) on 2010-07-09
description: updated
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :
Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
assignee: Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) → nobody
tags: added: patch
Benjamin Drung (bdrung) wrote :

You forgot to subscribe ubuntu-sponsors.

Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Wishlist

This looks fine, Surbhi

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

Scott, Thanks :)

Benjamin Drung (bdrung) on 2010-07-30
Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
status: In Progress → New
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

Correction made in debian/rules file

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

correction made in debian/rules file as follows:
1) install -D -m0644 udev-md-raid.rules $(DESTDIR_UDEB)/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules (Added the -D here)
2) dh_installexamples contrib/ (changed the newdisk to contrib/

Please consider merging these updated patches.

Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
status: New → In Progress
assignee: nobody → Surbhi Palande (csurbhi)
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

This bug is a merge request. Please do not mark it as "new or duplicate".

Benjamin Drung (bdrung) wrote :

New is a valid state for a merge request. There is no big difference between New, Confirmed, and Triaged for merge requests. Please unassign yourself if the bug is ready for sponsoring.

RnSC (webclark) wrote :

Re Benjamin Drung's note "Please unassign yourself if the bug is ready for sponsoring." I do not understand who this comment is directed to (Presumably anyone reading?) nor what action is required. I am ready to do anything required by the process to move a superior AND known reliable ("stable") version of mdadm to be released as an update to 10.04.

Benjamin, what are you asking for?

Benjamin Drung (bdrung) wrote :

Currently Surbhi Palande is assigned to this bug. When someone is assigned to a bug, he/she is working on it and no one other should touch it to avoid duplicate work. It looks like Surbhi has finished his work on it by providing a debdiff. Therefore he should unsassign himself.

Benjamin Drung (bdrung) wrote :

Surbhi, here is a quick review:
1) "This merge should solve the bug: LP: #603582" doesn't say anything. Something like "Merge from Debian unstable" is more descriptive.
2) debian/changelog: It's not obvious what change was a "remaining change" and what was a new change introduces by you.
3) You have to check lintian to not introduce more warnings with your merge. For example syntax-error-in-debian-changelog and debian-changelog-line-too-long needs to get fixed.
4) debian/changelog: "debian/rules: kept the commit 388049ed6f5f76ac8e484dda8de80831ab66a8ab from debian git." doesn't describe the change.
5) Please give debian/patches/debian-changes-3.1.2-2ubuntu1 a new name and a proper DEP-3 header.
6) Please describe which Ubuntu changes can be dropped (either here or in debian/changelog).

Please resubscribe ubuntu-sponsors once you have addressed the points.

Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
status: In Progress → Incomplete
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

@Benjamin Drung.
I have done this merge request according to:

The entries in debian/changelog like the bugnumber and others are done in accordance with Ubuntu policies. Thanks for your review!

Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → In Progress
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) on 2010-08-11
summary: - Please merge mdadm (main) from Debian unstable (main)
+ Please merge mdadm (main) from Debian stable (main)

I will change the debian/changelog thing. Thanks for that!

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :
Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
assignee: Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) → nobody
status: In Progress → Confirmed
Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

@Benjamin Drung, I have attached the new diffs with the debian/changelog changes you suggested. Thanks a lot for your review :)

Benjamin Drung (bdrung) on 2010-08-13
summary: - Please merge mdadm (main) from Debian stable (main)
+ Please merge mdadm 3.1.2-2 (main) from Debian stable (main)

The debdiff looks sane. Sorry, we passed feature freeze. You need a feature freeze exception [1]. Please resubscribe ubuntu-sponsors once the FFe is granted.

Why do you update po/*.po in your debdiff?


Clint Byrum (clint-fewbar) wrote :


Now that natty is open, I would like to see this newer version of mdadm added ASAP. Is there any reason not to upload it now?

Tuomas Jormola (tjormola) wrote :

Well, they didn't upgrade to the latest available version in jaunty, karmic, lucid or maverick. What makes you think Canonical would bother to do that for natty? Joking aside, I think it's pretty ridiculous that yesterday was the 2nd birthday of the upstream version of mdadm in Ubuntu while piles of cool features have been implemented in upstream since that... What other important package in main has suffered from two years of bit rot?

Benjamin Drung (bdrung) wrote :

@Surbhi: Can you update the debdiff for the latest version of mdadm in Debian unstable and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors.

@Tuomas: I assume that the package was not updated due to the lack of manpower. It's easy to find a package that needs more love. BTW, it doesn't have to do something with Canonical.

Jools Wills (jools) wrote :

I would say mdadm is rather more important than many other packages as it is a core component for anyone wanting to use software raid, and as something that is part tool part kernel driver, having it mismatched can cause problems. Certainly more important than moving the window icons :) Reading the ubuntu server page you would not think that something like this would be so out of date. I've had to maintain my own package for ubuntu for more than a year now :( (and has got to the point where I am switching machines back to debian, as I think the server edition is not what it claims to be)

just chiming in to say I would love to see this in the next release of ubuntu, mdadm version has been WAY behind for too long.

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

the above patch is a debdiff between ubuntu 2.7.1 and merged mdadm-3.4.1. Reattaching the two debdiffs again with appropriate names.

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

I have lightly tested these patches against Ubuntus maverick installer and also post installation.
Please do let me know the review and any changes that are required. Thanks a lot!

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

I also have a few tested patches for auto assembly to work properly. Shall add them on top of this, once these debdiffs are reviewed and accepted!

Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) on 2010-10-18
summary: - Please merge mdadm 3.1.2-2 (main) from Debian stable (main)
+ Please merge mdadm 3.1.4-1 (main) from Debian stable (main)
RnSC (webclark) wrote :

Surbhi, Because of your interest, I assume that you follow 495370, and jools' work? I don't know how to evaluate your work vs. his. I will be rebuilding an 0810 machine into 1004 within the next week (I hope) and really don't want to go with the old version if there is, by any reasonable judgement, a fairly low risk up to date alternative.

Would we do better with a unified front? How is yours different from Jools'? There seems to be a duplication of effort! Is there some reason for the parallel effort?

I will ask him the same question.


Surbhi Palande (csurbhi) wrote :

RnSC, by an large the work that I have done is merging the latest mdadm from Debian with Ubuntu related fixes. Also, I have cherry picked fixes from Neil Browns mdadm git repository and also created one other Ubuntu's mdadm related fix for initramfs - so that the auto assembly of md devices works. These need wider testing after which they will see their way in the Ubuntu's mdadm package. These patches shall be applied both to 2.7.1 and 3.4.1 soon!
As for the delta with respect to Jools work, I am not aware of it at this point. I will sync up with him on irc. Thanks for pointing this out.

Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :
Download full text (11.6 KiB)

This bug was fixed in the package mdadm - 3.1.4-1+8efb9d1ubuntu1

mdadm (3.1.4-1+8efb9d1ubuntu1) natty; urgency=low

  * Merge from debian unstable. (LP: #603582)
  * Remaining changes
    - Assemble.c, config.c: upgraded to the mdadm-3.1.4 version of these files
      from Debian.
    - debian/control: we need udev and util-linux in the right version. We
      also remove the build dependency from quilt and docbook-to-man as both
      are not used in Ubuntus mdadm.
    - debian/initramfs/hook: kept the Ubuntus version for handling the absence
      of active raid arrays in <initramfs>/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
    - debian/initramfs/script.local-top.DEBIAN, debian/mdadm-startall,
      debian/ removed. udev does its job now instead.
    - debian/mdadm-startall.sgml, debian/mdadm-startall.8: documentation of
      unused startall script
    - debian/mdadm.config, debian/mdadm.postinst - let udev do the handling
      instead. Resolved merge conflict by keeping Ubuntu's version.
    - debian/rules: kept debian's switch to using dh_lintian
    - debian/mdadm.links, debian/mdadm.manpages: dropped owing to the fact
      that these are not used in Ubuntu. Also dropped the build-dep on docbook
      to man)
    - debian/mdadm.postinst, debian/mdadm.config, initramfs/init-premount:
      boot-degraded enablement; maintain udev starting of RAID devices;
      init-premount hook script for the initramfs, to provide information at
    - debian/ is the older mkconf. Kept the Ubuntus version.
    - debian/rules: Kept Ubuntus version for installing apport hooks, not
      installing un-used startall script and for adding a udev rule
      corresponding to mdadm.
    - debian/install-rc, check.d/_numbers, check.d/root_on_raid: Ubuntu partman
      installer changes
    - debian/presubj: Dropped this unused bug reporting file. Instead use act as an apport hook for bug handling.
    - rename debian/mdadm.vol_id.udev to debian/mdadm.mdadm-blkid.udev so that
      the rules file ends up with a more reasonable name

mdadm (3.1.4-1+8efb9d1) unstable; urgency=low

  * Added patch with Makefile fix from upstream (commit 8efb9d1) to fix
    compiler/linker problem on non-x86 architectures (closes: #595290).

mdadm (3.1.4-1) unstable; urgency=low

  * New upstream release, which closes:#595039 and addresses the following
    issues too:
    - reverts move of incremental map (closes: #585015).
    - fixes mdadm monitor in the case of an inactive (or start-failed) raid0
      or linear array (closes: #539154).
    - prevent --remove faulty from skipping renumbered devices
      (closes: #587550).
    - fixed overflow when growing a RAID6 (closes: #589493).
  * However, disable the incremental assembly upstream turned on in 3.1.3 for
    now, this will have to wait until after the squeeze release.
  * initramfs/hook: make sure configuration file exists before accessing it;
    thanks to Michael Prokop for the fix and NMU (closes: #589836).
  * initramfs/hook: Match UUID case-insensitive while checking for running
    arrays not listed in mdadm.conf; thanks to Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe for the

Changed in mdadm (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
RnSC (webclark) wrote :


Please interpret - "Fix Released"
Does that mean that for some versions of Ubuntu that when I run the package manager that mdadm 3.1.4 will show up as the latest available!? What version(s)?

Clint Byrum (clint-fewbar) wrote :

RnSC, this means mdadm is at version 3.1.4 in natty, which was just recently opened for development, and will eventually become Ubuntu 11.04.

Once this new version of mdadm is tested on natty, its possible it could be backported to earlier releases.

Now that it is in the dev version, you can start now, but I'd recommend helping to test it on natty before you request a backport: to request new packages

Alf Gaida (agaida) wrote :

@22 - The first move was switching 2 machines to the debian mdadm. This solved my problems temporary. The final solution was switching the installations to debian. (All my other machines and customer machines are switched to debian to. ) Next time i will run ubuntu in a VM but never ever on a server.

Scott (ubuntu-buttonguy) wrote :

Any chance this will be backported to lucid? It was nominated for lucid in duplicate Bug #495370.

fermulator (fermulator) wrote :

NOTE: I've re-opened bug #495370 -- this bug DID NOT address the back-port to lucid...

To post a comment you must log in.