Missing virtio/scsi modules for arm64?

[Steve McIntyre]

Hey folks,

I;m just trying to do a buster install of arm64 (using buster d-i RC1)
in a qemu VM, and it's failing to find the virtio cdrom. Checking into
this, it looks like we're missing some modules in the installer
environment. Going back to alpha 5 (kernel 4.19.12-1), we get the
following modules loaded:

Module  Size  Used by
efivars20480  0
nls_utf8   16384  1
isofs  49152  1
sr_mod 32768  1
cdrom  61440  1 sr_mod
virtio_scsi20480  1
scsi_mod  233472  2 virtio_scsi,sr_mod
virtio_net 49152  0
virtio_blk 20480  0
net_failover   20480  1 virtio_net
failover   16384  1 net_failover
gpio_keys  20480  0
virtio_pci 28672  0
virtio_mmio20480  0
virtio_ring28672  5 
virtio_mmio,virtio_scsi,virtio_pci,virtio_blk,virtio_net
virtio 16384  5 
virtio_mmio,virtio_scsi,virtio_pci,virtio_blk,virtio_net

In RC1 (4.19.28-2), we only get:
Module  Size  Used by   
gpio_keys  20480  0 
virtio_pci 28672  0 
virtio_mmio20480  0 
virtio_ring28672  2 virtio_mmio,virtio_pci  
virtio 16384  2 virtio_mmio,virtio_pci  

and if I look for things like virtio_scsi or sr_mod they're just not
in the initramfs any more which will explain what's going on. Ben, I
can see that in d-i you've changed the package lists recently (i.e. in
between the 2 d-i releases):

commit 5b3bcf67a7d8ba7745612a449cede24afeb97015
Author: Ben Hutchings 
Date:   Tue Feb 12 21:18:40 2019 +

build/pkg-lists: Make {hyperv,virtio}-modules packages optional

I intend to remove these udebs in a later upload of linux, moving
the drivers into per-driver-class packages.

and I'm guessing these changes are related to what I'm seeing. Can you
suggest what we should be doing to fix things up, please? I'm at a
total loss to see where amd64 is gettting d-i modules from nowadays,
and arm64 should be reasonably similar in terms of things like block
device support modules here.

Cheers,

Steve

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb." -- Steven M. Haflich

Re: Heads-up: new lintian error: no-human-maintainers

[Holger Levsen]

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 01:50:24AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> I don't really see what's so specific about d-i here.

I agree, this is not about d-i.


-- 
tschau,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Heads-up: new lintian error: no-human-maintainers

[Russ Allbery]

Sean Whitton  writes:
> On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 11:03AM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> This was a request from ftpmaster so that they had a contact point for
>> each package in the case of any problems.  If they're happy for this
>> requirement to be removed for d-i packages, we're happy to update
>> Policy accordingly.  Presumably the d-i team is the contact for
>> anything related to udebs, so that may fulfill their requirement.  (If
>> they're unhappy, we should talk more about it.)

> Hmm, I think you might be forgetting a bit of context -- unless I'm
> forgetting something, the main opposition to the 2017 attempt to kill
> the human uploaders requirement was that it would make the MIA process
> more difficult for the MIA team to carry out.

> Both members and non-members of the MIA team were arguing that.  I do
> not believe the ftpmasters were involved in that discussion at all.

Oh, I'm sorry, you're quite right.  I completely forgot about that.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Heads-up: new lintian error: no-human-maintainers

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi,

Sean Whitton  (2019-04-25):
> On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 11:03AM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> > This was a request from ftpmaster so that they had a contact point for
> > each package in the case of any problems.  If they're happy for this
> > requirement to be removed for d-i packages, we're happy to update Policy
> > accordingly.  Presumably the d-i team is the contact for anything related
> > to udebs, so that may fulfill their requirement.  (If they're unhappy, we
> > should talk more about it.)
> 
> Hmm, I think you might be forgetting a bit of context -- unless I'm
> forgetting something, the main opposition to the 2017 attempt to kill
> the human uploaders requirement was that it would make the MIA process
> more difficult for the MIA team to carry out.
> 
> Both members and non-members of the MIA team were arguing that.  I do
> not believe the ftpmasters were involved in that discussion at all.
> 
> ISTM that an exception for d-i packages would be much less
> controversial.

I don't really see what's so specific about d-i here. We have a number
of packages with a well-identified point of contact. Arguably all of
debian-*@lists.debian.org could be considered this way (at the very
least debian-boot@ and debian-x@, with which I've been involved).


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Heads-up: new lintian error: no-human-maintainers

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Russ,

On Mon 22 Apr 2019 at 11:03AM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:

> This was a request from ftpmaster so that they had a contact point for
> each package in the case of any problems.  If they're happy for this
> requirement to be removed for d-i packages, we're happy to update Policy
> accordingly.  Presumably the d-i team is the contact for anything related
> to udebs, so that may fulfill their requirement.  (If they're unhappy, we
> should talk more about it.)

Hmm, I think you might be forgetting a bit of context -- unless I'm
forgetting something, the main opposition to the 2017 attempt to kill
the human uploaders requirement was that it would make the MIA process
more difficult for the MIA team to carry out.

Both members and non-members of the MIA team were arguing that.  I do
not believe the ftpmasters were involved in that discussion at all.

ISTM that an exception for d-i packages would be much less
controversial.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [buster] query about status of installation-guide and d-i release notes

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi all,

Paul Gevers  (2019-04-25):
> On 25-04-2019 08:11, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > Paul Gevers  wrote:
> > First, I wonder why you ask personally me for this. 
> 
> Because the task was originally self-assigned to kibi and was
> documented on the wiki [1] as "ask Holger".

Right, this is entirely my fault: when asked about the status of our
documentation, I only had your name in mind when thinking about the
recent work I had seen on the installation guide, but wanted to double
check the list archives. I happened to have been quite busy since the
release team sprint and was quite happy to see Paul volunteer to steal
this task from me, and I failed to communicate some digging would be
welcome before bothering you.

To both of you: Sorry for the lack of research + communication.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#927797: unblock: debian-archive-keyring/2019.1

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi Niels,

Niels Thykier  (2019-04-23):
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> Tags: d-i
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> 
> Please unblock package debian-archive-keyring, which includes the new
> signing keys for buster.
> 
> """
> debian-archive-keyring (2019.1) unstable; urgency=medium
> 
>   [ Adam D. Barratt ]
>   * Ensure separated keyrings for Wheezy's keys are removed.  Thanks
> to Sven Joachim.
> (Closes: #912214)
> 
>   [ Jonathan Wiltshire ]
>   * Add my own key to the team-members keyring
>   * Add Debian Stable Release key (10/buster) (ID: DCC9EFBF77E11517)
> (Closes: #917536)
>   * Add Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (10/buster)
> (ID: BCDDDC30D7C23CBBABEE) and Debian Security Archive Automatic
> Signing Key (10/buster) (ID: C5FF4DFAB270CAA96DFA)
> (Closes: #917535)
>   * Refresh the signature over keyrings/debian-archive-keyring.gpg
> 
>   [ Niels Thykier ]
>   * Add myself as uploader (Closes: #927765)
> 
>  -- Niels Thykier   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 13:42:28 +0200
> """
> 
> A diffstat:
> 
> """
> 
> $ diffstat debian-archive-keyring.debdiff
>  active-keys/add-buster-automatic  |  179 +++
>  active-keys/add-buster-security-automatic |  179 +++
>  active-keys/add-buster-stable |   58 
>  active-keys/index |3 
>  active-keys/index.gpg |   21 +
>  debian/changelog  |   22 +
>  debian/control|1 
>  debian/debian-archive-keyring.maintscript |2 
>  keyrings/debian-archive-keyring.gpg.asc   |   21 +
>  team-members/add-5394479DD3524C51 |  357 
> ++
>  team-members/index|1 
>  team-members/index.gpg|   21 +
>  12 files changed, 841 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> """

That'd be the usual source debdiff, but that doesn't account for this
change in the udeb (which I wasn't expecting from the changelog
entries):

$ debdiff debian-archive-keyring-udeb_2018.1_all.udeb 
debian-archive-keyring-udeb_2019.1_all.udeb
[…]
Files in second .deb but not in first
-
-rw-r--r--  root/root 
/usr/share/keyrings/debian-archive-buster-automatic.gpg
-rw-r--r--  root/root 
/usr/share/keyrings/debian-archive-buster-security-automatic.gpg
-rw-r--r--  root/root /usr/share/keyrings/debian-archive-buster-stable.gpg
[…]

Having those extra files around shouldn't hurt (and doesn't seem to,
based on some quick tests using a brand new netboot-gtk image built
against sid), but I thought I'd mention it anyway.


No objections, feel free to unblock.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#903393: [initramfs-tools] update-initramfs -u warns: Unknown X keysym "dead_belowmacron"

[at46]

Seems the warnings are gone. Neither with update-initramfs nor with 
setupcon I get the "WARNING: Unknown X keysym "dead_belowmacron"" 
messages anymore.


Axel

Re: [buster] query about status of installation-guide and d-i release notes

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Holger,

On 25-04-2019 08:11, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Paul Gevers  wrote:
> First, I wonder why you ask personally me for this. 

Because the task was originally self-assigned to kibi and was documented
on the wiki [1] as "ask Holger".

> Why not ask the debian-boot team?

See above. I didn't intent at all to keep this away from them.

> Second: now that you have asked, the installation-guide should be mostly 
> release-ready; one can consider an exception here, which is Secure Boot.
> This functionality has been added in a last minute rush into the installer,
> and thus is not properly documented in the installation-guide.
> However, the guide is still release-ready despite this, if you ask me.

Good to know. Thanks.

> When it comes to the release-notes, I mailed a short proposal for this to
> debian-boot weeks ago, but got no answer.
> And I already pointed you to this mail some days ago.

Ack. I noted the reply and thanks for that as well.

Paul



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature