r30 - in mdadm/trunk/debian: . patches

[madduck at users.alioth.debian.org]

Author: madduck
Date: 2006-07-24 22:19:56 +0000 (Mon, 24 Jul 2006)
New Revision: 30

Modified:
   mdadm/trunk/debian/README.Debian
   mdadm/trunk/debian/changelog
   mdadm/trunk/debian/patches/99-raid5-vs-raid10-doc.dpatch
Log:
* Add reference to BAARF to README.Debian and included the RAID5 vs RAID10
  article from the BAARF website.

Modified: mdadm/trunk/debian/README.Debian
===================================================================
--- mdadm/trunk/debian/README.Debian	2006-07-24 22:08:03 UTC (rev 29)
+++ mdadm/trunk/debian/README.Debian	2006-07-24 22:19:56 UTC (rev 30)
@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@
 Check /usr/share/doc/mdadm/README.recipes.gz for some simple examples of how
 to do the most common stuff with mdadm.
 
+RAID5 or not to RAID5
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+See http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html . The package maintainer could
+not possibly come up with so much emotion over such a technical topic.
+
+See also the RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt.gz document included with this package.
+
 Upstream
 ~~~~~~~~
 For completeness: The upstream repository is available from

Modified: mdadm/trunk/debian/changelog
===================================================================
--- mdadm/trunk/debian/changelog	2006-07-24 22:08:03 UTC (rev 29)
+++ mdadm/trunk/debian/changelog	2006-07-24 22:19:56 UTC (rev 30)
@@ -9,12 +9,13 @@
   * Removed the code writing auto-detected devices to /var, which was silly
     since /var isn't necessarily mounted yet by the time mdadm-raid is called.
     Thanks to Mau for pointing this out.
-  * Added questionable RAID5-vs-RAID10.txt document.
+  * Add reference to BAARF to README.Debian and included the RAID5 vs RAID10
+    article from the BAARF website.
   * Updated debconf translations:
     - Japanese by Hideki Yamane, thanks!
     - French by Florentin Duneau, thanks! (closes: #379511)
 
- -- martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org>  Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:07:33 +0100
+ -- martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org>  Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:14:29 +0100
 
 mdadm (2.5.2-7) unstable; urgency=low
 

Modified: mdadm/trunk/debian/patches/99-raid5-vs-raid10-doc.dpatch
===================================================================
--- mdadm/trunk/debian/patches/99-raid5-vs-raid10-doc.dpatch	2006-07-24 22:08:03 UTC (rev 29)
+++ mdadm/trunk/debian/patches/99-raid5-vs-raid10-doc.dpatch	2006-07-24 22:19:56 UTC (rev 30)
@@ -7,13 +7,19 @@
 @DPATCH@
 diff -urNad trunk~/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt trunk/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
 --- trunk~/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
-+++ trunk/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt	2006-07-24 23:06:52.373326792 +0100
-@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
++++ trunk/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt	2006-07-24 23:18:32.250326974 +0100
+@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
 +# from http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txt
++# also see http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html
 +#
-+# note: I, the Debian maintainer, do not agree with much of what's written
-+# here, but it's a good argument the author is putting forth. In the end, the
-+# RAID level you choose depends on your needs only.
++# Note: I, the Debian maintainer, do not agree with some of the arguments,
++# especially not with the total condemning of RAID5. Anyone who talks about
++# data loss and blames the RAID system should spend time reading up on Backups
++# instead of trying to evangelise, but that's only my opinion. RAID5 has its
++# merits and its shortcomings, just like any other method. However, the author
++# of this argument puts forth a good case and thus I am including the
++# document. Remember that you're the only one that can decide which RAID level
++# to use.
 +#
 +
 +RAID5 versus RAID10 (or even RAID3 or RAID4)