Bug#1005236: closing 1005236

From	Tongliang Liao <xkszltl@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist, linux.debian.kernel
Subject	Bug#1005236: closing 1005236
Date	2022-02-10 14:50 +0100
Message-ID	<DPhZD-RKq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <DP0m5-G3U-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <DPhPX-RH3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <DPhPX-RH3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <DP0m5-G3U-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <DPhPX-RH3-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Aha thanks for the clarification, that closing is definitely misleading.

> So far we got only little feedback on the experimental version, so we
were not yet confident to upload it to unstable.

One possible option for feedback is to have it in Sid and let Ubuntu
quickly try it out on non-LTS, they certainly have enough community for
this.
As long as it's stabilized before the LTS cut, it should be good for
everyone.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:27 PM Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:13:12PM +0800, Tongliang Liao wrote:
> > I'm aware of the exp version, but there're 2 concerns:
> >
> >    1. Deploying from exp repo doesn't sound right for production systems,
> >    for stability reason of course.
> >    2. I'm not familiar of changes in nfs-utils. Given the major version
> >    update and the fact that both Debian 11/Sid haven't included v2, I
> >    guess it's either not well-tested on Debian, or has breaking changes
> that
> >    most people don't want? That's why I proposed for a simple backport,
> >    although most non-Debian distros have moved to v2 officially.
>
> Let me explain, because I realize the just closing the bug might be
> missinterpreted. This was for version tracking. The issue is fixed in
> the repsective experimental version, so we can track it accordingly.
> The BTS will show you still affected the unstable, testing and stable
> version.
>
> We "might" backport the fix to stable, once it is fixed in the upper
> suite that said, and yes the target would then be to cherry-pick the
> commit you referenced. Moving to 2.5.4 in stable is not an option.
>
> So far we got only little feedback on the experimental version, so we
> were not yet confident to upload it to unstable. But we need to move
> this move earlier than too late for bookworm to avoid that we have
> another Debian cycle with an ancient nfs-utils version.
>
> There is as well an open question on how to handle the upstream
> introduced move to /etc/nfs.conf.
>
> Hope this clarifies your questions.
>
> Regards,
> Salvatore
>


-- 
From  LTL

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1005236: nfs-kernel-server 1.3.4 does not support security_label option for SELinux over NFS 4.2 Tongliang Liao <xkszltl@gmail.com> - 2022-02-09 20:00 +0100
  Bug#1005236:  Andreas Hasenack <andreas@canonical.com> - 2022-02-10 14:10 +0100
  Bug#1005236: closing 1005236 Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2022-02-10 14:40 +0100
    Bug#1005236: closing 1005236 Tongliang Liao <xkszltl@gmail.com> - 2022-02-10 14:50 +0100

csiph-web