Hi Thomas, On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:29:33PM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > severity 926043 important > thanks > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 01:56:35PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 4/2/19 12:46 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 12:33:10PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > >> On 4/1/19 11:44 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > >>> Instead of arguing over bug severities, can't we rather fix the bug? > > >> > > >> Sure. > > >> > > >>> Ubuntu fixed this already and their versions seems fairly close. > > >> > > >> That's the thing. I went into the launchpad bug report, and it's full of > > >> small, incremental commits, from which it is very hard to figure out > > >> which one is really fixing the issue. Also, the Ubuntu package is just > > >> getting a snapshot from upstream, it's not integrating any patch. If > > >> someone can point at the correct patch, I'll do the update work. > > > > > > Actually, given Bastian's reply, we can just close the bug, or am I > > > missing > > > something? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Moritz > > > > Well, not 100%. "we" don't support cloud-init provisioning yet. Though > > someone running Debian, building their own image, cloud be affected by > > the bug. Which is why I'd suggest downgrading the bug to important, as > > it would only affect, only potentially, a very small subset of users. > > OK, I see! Downgrading makes total sense, then. Doing that now. > > > I still believe we should try to get this fixed in time for Buster, and > > backport it to Stretch. > > Ack.
Did you had a chance to look into this specifically for unstable and possibly buster (still agreeing on the reasoning, but was looking trough some pending mails and spotted the intend above). Regards, Salvatore