Hide Forgot
The gfs2_tool utility is obsolete. We need to remove it from gfs2-utils, and to document why it has gone and what its replacements are. The details are as follows: clearflag/setflag - Replaced by lsattr/chattr from earliest GFS2 releases freeze/unfreeze - Replaced by dmsetup suspend/resume (note that this is done automatically by lvm in most cases where it is required) journals - No exact replacement, but can be done by mounting the meta filesystem, or via gfs2_edit on an unmounted filesystem sb - Replaced by tunegfs2 lockdump - Replaced by cat (with debugfs mounted) withdraw - Replaced by echo (with sysfs) gettune/settune - Replaced by mount arguments (and mount -o remount)
Probably the best way to deal with this is to follow the procedure we are using for mount.gfs2 - i.e. stop installing it in the rawhide package, and then remove from the source when there are no longer any shipping fedora releases with the utility in them.
gfs2_tool removed from rawhide: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gfs2-utils.git;a=commitdiff;h=db857572274e8f7423de1ac02959e7e9fb4abe91
Added rel note content for F16. I'm assuming that it will be ok to close this bz without the rel note content being missed?
Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team. New Contents: From Fedora 16, the gfs2_utils package will no longer contain the gfs2_tool utility. This has been replaced by other tools: o The fs freeze operation can be accessed via dmsetup o The superblock view/edit operations can be done from tunegfs2 o The filesystem options can be set on the mount command line (mount -o remount to change without umount) o The setting/clearing of flags can be done via chattr/lsattr
Sorry to say that, but this info has unfortunately never made it to the release notes :( Next time, please at least CC somebody from the Fedora QA team. Nevertheless thanks for this info at least, google works fine:)
I did check what the correct procedure was at the time, though I don't remember the source of the info now. My understanding was that setting the requires release notes flag should have been enough to flag it up for the release notes. Apologies if I should have done more than that - but I assumed that the flag meant what it said. It is probably not the end of the world though - I doubt that anybody was using this tool very often as the replacements have been around a long time now.
Indeed, there is still swhiteho: fedora_requires_release_note? @Adam: is that not the intended procedure anymore?
milos: I don't know; QA doesn't handle the release notes, Docs team does. (We do the Common Bugs page). I'd ask someone from the Docs team. In practice, I was able to get some things in the F17 release notes by mailing the docs list.