| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:01:03 +0100 |
| 2 |
Matt Harrison <iwasinnamuknow@×××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:25PM +0200, Florian Philipp wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Which versions are you using, to which shall they be updated and on |
| 6 |
> > which arch are you? Knowing emerge --info and your profile might |
| 7 |
> > also help. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Thanks for the reply. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Ok, versions in use: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> lvm2-2.02.10 |
| 14 |
> mdadm-2.6.4-r1 |
| 15 |
> udev-104-r12 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I've masked updates to an versions after those above. Emerge wants to |
| 18 |
> upgrade to the following: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> lvm2-2.02.28-r2 |
| 21 |
> udev-119 |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
udev-104 ?! That's not even in the portage tree any longer, right? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In any case: Opening a bug might help you faster than we could. The only |
| 27 |
advice I can give you is to upgrade udev first so you know which |
| 28 |
package really has the bug and then to try newer versions of lvm, I'd |
| 29 |
try 2.02.36 which is marked stable for amd64 (I guess, you're on x86?). |
Archives