Hi! New Version is out! -> ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/lvm2/
This has been added to the tree.
sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.04 sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.03 are broken. Please mask them. https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2006-April/msg00084.html http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-455367-highlight-lvm2.html
(In reply to comment #2) > sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.04 > sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.03 > > are broken. Please mask them. They are, indeed. I've barely been able to rescue my system with the help of the lvm devs. They urged me (and that's the understatement of the year!) to use 2.02.05.
sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.04-r1 has a patch. And both, 2.02.03 and 2.02.04 were removed from portage. No need to keep spamming this bug :) Best regards, Norberto
I was referring to versions up to and INCLUDING sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.04-r1 which I was using when things went wrong. But I'm fixed now using 2.02.05, so I won't "spam" this bug anymore.
Oops. Sorry. So you're saying 2.02.04-r1 is buggy too? Is it the VGID bug or something else?
Well, there were several problems. The classic "duplicate vg id" (the same vg id being shown twice) was among them (though the warning text was different than the one shown in bug 130626). Even stranger was the behaviour after the next reboot (I didn't change anything because the last time I tried to fix such a problem I lost the data) when it complained about two *different* (and significantly so) vg ids. Next vgchange couldn't see the relation between the LVs and the VG. After that I ended up with two VGs withe the same *name* and different VG ids. (No, I didn't export/import.) And it all started after a seemingly clean reboot of the machine in question. I don't know why all this happened but I know I had 2.02.04-r1 installed: emerge -pv =sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.04-r1 These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild R ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.04-r1 USE="readline -clvm -cman -gulm -nolvm1 -nolvmstatic -nomirrors -nosnapshots" 0 kB Total size of downloads: 0 kB (Portage still thinks it's installed because, for obvious reasons, I had to install .05 manually.) Maybe this is an isolated case but I know I won't be going back to any LVM2 < 2.02.05 which fixed it all for me.
