Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1222699 > unrolled thread

Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net> - 2024-12-04 15:10 +0100
    Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2024-12-05 05:10 +0100
    Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Hans van Kranenburg <hans@knorrie.org> - 2024-12-07 13:10 +0100
      Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2024-12-08 06:40 +0100
        Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Maximilian Engelhardt <maxi@daemonizer.de> - 2024-12-08 16:50 +0100
          Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2024-12-10 04:10 +0100
            Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Hans van Kranenburg <hans@knorrie.org> - 2024-12-19 23:30 +0100
              Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2024-12-20 04:10 +0100
                Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Hans van Kranenburg <hans@knorrie.org> - 2024-12-20 18:50 +0100
                  Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2024-12-21 03:10 +0100
        Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Santiago Ruano Rincón <santiagorr@riseup.net> - 2024-12-11 01:10 +0100
          Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19 Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2024-12-12 04:20 +0100

#1222699 — Bug#1089033: xen: Please package xen version 4.19

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Source: xen
Severity: normal
User: debian-lts@lists.debian.org
Usertags: upstream-trixie
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-lts@lists.debian.org

Dear xen maintainers,

Testing (trixie) currently ships xen 4.17, which, according to the
upstream support matrix [x], will get security support until 2025-12-12.
The latest upstream release (4.19) will get security support until
2027-07-29. I believe it would be easier to provide security updates for
trixie users if 4.19 is packaged in testing.

If you need or want help packaging this new upstream version, please
don't hesitate to speak up. Someone from the LTS team, may be interested
in contributing (CC'ing debian-lts).

[x] https://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/support-matrix.html

Best regards,

 -- Santiago, for the LTS Team.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1222778

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Wed 04 Dec 2024 at 10:56am -03, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:

> Source: xen
> Severity: normal
> User: debian-lts@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: upstream-trixie
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-lts@lists.debian.org
>
> Dear xen maintainers,
>
> Testing (trixie) currently ships xen 4.17, which, according to the
> upstream support matrix [x], will get security support until 2025-12-12.
> The latest upstream release (4.19) will get security support until
> 2027-07-29. I believe it would be easier to provide security updates for
> trixie users if 4.19 is packaged in testing.
>
> If you need or want help packaging this new upstream version, please
> don't hesitate to speak up. Someone from the LTS team, may be interested
> in contributing (CC'ing debian-lts).

As I'm familiar with the git-debrebase workflow that Xen uses in Debian,
I might be well-placed to help; on the other hand, I'm less experienced
with packages that require special booting arrangements to test they are
working.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1223052

Hi!

Thanks for reaching out.

On 12/5/24 05:19, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 12:06:00PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed 04 Dec 2024 at 10:56am -03, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
>>
>>> Source: xen
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: debian-lts@lists.debian.org
>>> Usertags: upstream-trixie
>>> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-lts@lists.debian.org
>>>
>>> Dear xen maintainers,
>>>
>>> Testing (trixie) currently ships xen 4.17, which, according to the
>>> upstream support matrix [x], will get security support until 2025-12-12.
>>> The latest upstream release (4.19) will get security support until
>>> 2027-07-29. I believe it would be easier to provide security updates for
>>> trixie users if 4.19 is packaged in testing.
>>>
>>> If you need or want help packaging this new upstream version, please
>>> don't hesitate to speak up. Someone from the LTS team, may be interested
>>> in contributing (CC'ing debian-lts).
>>
>> As I'm familiar with the git-debrebase workflow that Xen uses in Debian,
>> I might be well-placed to help; on the other hand, I'm less experienced
>> with packages that require special booting arrangements to test they are
>> working.
> 
> I'm not sure about the official plans or the current state, but
> exploring salsa one can find a WIP branch with 4.19:
> https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/-/commits/myx/wip/experimental/?ref_type=heads

Yes, we need some assistance.

The situation regarding the packages is:
* We have a Xen 4.19 package ready, that has been tested.
* ==> We need a sponsor to upload it to experimental as NEW <==
* We can then prepare an up-to-date 4.19 for unstable.
* And then... we can again continue doing the 4.17 (security-)updates
for stable.

The current situation regarding the Debian Xen team is:
* Currently that's Maximilian and me. (I'm a DM)
* We're a dedicated team, we do manage, but we're also not enormously
high on excess bandwidth. I mean, we can't do a lot of the 'nice to haves'.
* We have established a stable workflow with great checklists in the
last few years.
* We always try to work together, mainly for quality reasons, to
continuously double-check what we're doing before we ship it, but also
of course because it's more fun to do things together than on your own.

But, there are single points of failure, as can already be spotted in
the above. I myself have been less available for personal reasons in the
last months (Hans says yes, life says no, for who recognizes such a
situation), and we were not really prepared yet for something like that
happening.

In general, what we could really use for assistance is a bit of a safety
net for certain situations. Like, a few (DD) people who we know and who
know about us and what we do, and who we can contact if needed, and who
can help with various topics, like sponsoring uploads if needed, help
with packaging tooling, navigating non-trivial package transitions,
complex makefile/build/library-dependency/etc stuff...

By the way, big thanks to the Team Security (Cc), especially Moritz and
Carnil, who already are more than a great help with the security update
workflow!

We can further discuss here, or interactively in #debian-xen on OFTC.
I'm going for lunch break now and will be on IRC.

Thanks,
Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1223176

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Sat 07 Dec 2024 at 12:58pm +01, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:

> Yes, we need some assistance.

Thank you for the write-up.  Santiago, maybe we should add a link to
this thread to packages.yml, or something like that?  What do you think?

> The situation regarding the packages is:
> * We have a Xen 4.19 package ready, that has been tested.
> * ==> We need a sponsor to upload it to experimental as NEW <==
> * We can then prepare an up-to-date 4.19 for unstable.
> * And then... we can again continue doing the 4.17 (security-)updates
> for stable.

Cool, I will sponsor the upload, can you confirm the repository and
branch that you consider ready-to-go ?

> The current situation regarding the Debian Xen team is:
> * Currently that's Maximilian and me. (I'm a DM)
> * We're a dedicated team, we do manage, but we're also not enormously
> high on excess bandwidth. I mean, we can't do a lot of the 'nice to haves'.

Describes plenty of teams in Debian.
I like to think it means you don't spend time on things that are
not-really-nice-to-have-but-feel-like-they-are :)

> In general, what we could really use for assistance is a bit of a safety
> net for certain situations. Like, a few (DD) people who we know and who
> know about us and what we do, and who we can contact if needed, and who
> can help with various topics, like sponsoring uploads if needed, help
> with packaging tooling, navigating non-trivial package transitions,
> complex makefile/build/library-dependency/etc stuff...

When it's a matter of these major version transitions and you are close
to running out of time for the next stable release of Debian, I think
you could always get in touch with debian-lts@lists.d.o and there is a
good chance someone is available to help (me in this case).

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1223232

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi everybody,

I'm sorry for replying late, this week was quite busy for me.

On Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2024 06:38:09 CET Sean Whitton wrote:
> > The situation regarding the packages is:
> > * We have a Xen 4.19 package ready, that has been tested.
> > * ==> We need a sponsor to upload it to experimental as NEW <==
> > * We can then prepare an up-to-date 4.19 for unstable.
> > * And then... we can again continue doing the 4.17 (security-)updates
> > for stable.
> 
> Cool, I will sponsor the upload, can you confirm the repository and
> branch that you consider ready-to-go ?

I have been preparing first xen 4.18 and later xen 4.19 some time ago in the 
hope to get it into unstable and testing. However this was somehow stalled by 
waiting for review and approval from Hans. And also me failing to search for 
help in other places to get things moving, after nothing happened for a long 
time.

In agreement with Hans I have now finalized my current branch and put it 
directly in our experimental branch:

https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/-/tree/experimental
(commit 0d23f70837fcd59f450dd281c224d3a06d923a09)

The current packaging state is a few month old, but I guess it's best to get 
it into the Debian archive pretty soon. We can then prepare an update to the 
latest upstream, which should not be too much work.

I did some tests to make sure what is currently in the experimental branch is 
working well. This includes:

* compiling in an updated unstable environment and check it compiles fine
* check lintian output for any severe issues with the package
* run the xen hypervisor in a qemu vm and verify xen vm creation is working
* Compile a backport to bookworm which I have been running for some month on a 
local test system using pci-passthrough without and problems

To my knowledge the following would be the next steps:

* upload xen 4.19 to experimental to pass the new queue.
* update to latest upstream and upload to unstable when suitable.
  The upload to unstable will also trigger a small transition, but usually 
just rebuilding the affected packages (kexec-tools, libvirt, qemu and 
collectd) is sufficient.
* monitor there are now issues preventing it from migrating to testing

Once this has happened we can also look into updating xen in stable again.

Thanks,
Maxi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1223415

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

Uploaded to NEW.  Please 'dgit fetch' my
debian/4.19.0+14-g0918434e0f-1_exp1 tag and push it to your repository
on salsa.  Thanks!

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1224904

Hi Sean,

On 12/10/24 03:58, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 
> Uploaded to NEW.  Please 'dgit fetch' my
> debian/4.19.0+14-g0918434e0f-1_exp1 tag and push it to your repository
> on salsa.  Thanks!

Done.

We'd like to request an additional sponsored upload, since we're again
touching the binary packages list...

https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/-/commits/experimental

I already tried uploading it, but got a REJECTED back. I couldn't really
find definitive information about when exactly a binary package name
would trigger NEW if it was already in the archive and related to the
same source package, so I gave it a try to find out. So, the dgit tags
etc do already exist. I don't know if this is a problem.

We have a FTBFS on armhf, and while investigating, we found out that
we're not going to be able to fix that. Since the armhf build was
already unusable by default for years, we're now deciding to pull the
plug on the life support of the already comatose patient.

Also see the commits.

And, we're also uncrufting the remainder of the t64 stuff, because for
the libraries involved it already did not make sense to begin with. And
if it had made sense, it could actually have introduced upgrade problems
for our users, since these are the libraries that users would also be
using then rebooting back to the Bookworm Xen 4.17 for any reason after
they upgrade to Trixie. But, in any case, we don't even have 32-bit
archs left currently, so that would only have applied to armhf which no
one is running with Debian Xen packages already. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Regards,
Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1224922

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Thu 19 Dec 2024 at 11:25pm +01, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> On 12/10/24 03:58, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>
>> Uploaded to NEW.  Please 'dgit fetch' my
>> debian/4.19.0+14-g0918434e0f-1_exp1 tag and push it to your repository
>> on salsa.  Thanks!
>
> Done.
>
> We'd like to request an additional sponsored upload, since we're again
> touching the binary packages list...
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/-/commits/experimental
>
> I already tried uploading it, but got a REJECTED back. I couldn't really
> find definitive information about when exactly a binary package name
> would trigger NEW if it was already in the archive and related to the
> same source package, so I gave it a try to find out. So, the dgit tags
> etc do already exist. I don't know if this is a problem.

Not a problem, you just need to add a new changelog entry and bump the
version number.  If you'd like to give me push access to the repository,
it might be easiest for me to do it.  Whichever.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1224994

Hi,

On 12/20/24 03:56, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu 19 Dec 2024 at 11:25pm +01, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> 
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> On 12/10/24 03:58, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>>
>>> Uploaded to NEW.  Please 'dgit fetch' my
>>> debian/4.19.0+14-g0918434e0f-1_exp1 tag and push it to your repository
>>> on salsa.  Thanks!
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> We'd like to request an additional sponsored upload, since we're again
>> touching the binary packages list...
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/-/commits/experimental
>>
>> I already tried uploading it, but got a REJECTED back. I couldn't really
>> find definitive information about when exactly a binary package name
>> would trigger NEW if it was already in the archive and related to the
>> same source package, so I gave it a try to find out. So, the dgit tags
>> etc do already exist. I don't know if this is a problem.
> 
> Not a problem, you just need to add a new changelog entry and bump the
> version number.  If you'd like to give me push access to the repository,
> it might be easiest for me to do it.  Whichever.

4.19.1-1~exp3 is ready for upload:

https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/-/commits/experimental

I added you to the members on Salsa. That's a good idea and convenient
for all of us.

Thanks a lot,
Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1225068

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

Uploaded!

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1223531

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Thanks a lot to Hans, Maximilian and Sean!

El 08/12/24 a las 13:38, Sean Whitton escribió:
> Hello,
> 
> On Sat 07 Dec 2024 at 12:58pm +01, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> 
> > Yes, we need some assistance.
> 
> Thank you for the write-up.  Santiago, maybe we should add a link to
> this thread to packages.yml, or something like that?  What do you think?

Why not, but... xen security support in bullseye last year (exactly on
2023-09-30, a little more than two years after the bullseye release):
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053246, and it was
similar for buster.
Of course, part of the goal of my initial bug report was to improve the
xen security support for trixie in that sense. The Xen packaging team
has stated in #1053246 that they were not in a position to continue
supporting xen after the upstream EOL. (And one of the next steps is to
look again for external help). My point is that the lts-team's
package.yml is probably not the best place to document the xen team'
needs, because xen is out of our current tooling radar.

Adding it there doesn't harm, but I wonder if that is the best place if
the goal is to monitor packages where the LTS team could help on
unstable/testing. Further discussion can be done at the "Explore ways to
figure out which packages in unstable could use help" issue:
https://salsa.debian.org/lts-team/lts-extra-tasks/-/issues/71.

[...]

> > In general, what we could really use for assistance is a bit of a safety
> > net for certain situations. Like, a few (DD) people who we know and who
> > know about us and what we do, and who we can contact if needed, and who
> > can help with various topics, like sponsoring uploads if needed, help
> > with packaging tooling, navigating non-trivial package transitions,
> > complex makefile/build/library-dependency/etc stuff...
> 
> When it's a matter of these major version transitions and you are close
> to running out of time for the next stable release of Debian, I think
> you could always get in touch with debian-lts@lists.d.o and there is a
> good chance someone is available to help (me in this case).

+1

Cheers,

 -- Santiago

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1223681

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Tue 10 Dec 2024 at 09:05pm -03, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:

> Why not, but... xen security support in bullseye last year (exactly on
> 2023-09-30, a little more than two years after the bullseye release):
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1053246, and it was
> similar for buster.
> Of course, part of the goal of my initial bug report was to improve the
> xen security support for trixie in that sense. The Xen packaging team
> has stated in #1053246 that they were not in a position to continue
> supporting xen after the upstream EOL. (And one of the next steps is to
> look again for external help). My point is that the lts-team's
> package.yml is probably not the best place to document the xen team'
> needs, because xen is out of our current tooling radar.
>
> Adding it there doesn't harm, but I wonder if that is the best place if
> the goal is to monitor packages where the LTS team could help on
> unstable/testing. Further discussion can be done at the "Explore ways to
> figure out which packages in unstable could use help" issue:
> https://salsa.debian.org/lts-team/lts-extra-tasks/-/issues/71.

I'll drop a note there, thanks.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web