Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Steven Chamberlain]

Hi,

On 08/02/13 20:52, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Joey Hess  writes:
>> syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
>> which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.
> 
> My unstated assumption was that if d-i were able to successfully build
> against the syslinux version in sid, that said version would be promoted
> into testing before the actual release.

But the new upload of syslinux would not satisfy the Release Team's
freeze policy, would it?  As per their most recent 'bits' mail to d-d-a
and published at:

http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51158fbb.5070...@pyro.eu.org

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Bdale Garbee]

Joey Hess  writes:

> Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid
>
> syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
> which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.

My unstated assumption was that if d-i were able to successfully build
against the syslinux version in sid, that said version would be promoted
into testing before the actual release.  For the record, I certainly
wasn't trying to propose an obvious GPL violation!

Bdale


pgpairXVB3Onr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Philipp Kern]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:33:00AM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> As Adam already pointed out we would still need another d-i upload to
> unstable to make sure unstable has a higher-or-equal version compared to
> testing.

Sometimes I wonder why it cannot simply propagate to the upper suite.
We do that for packages from s-p-u at point release time, too.
I guess the flow would be "britney import → if version > unstable
→ stuff the new testing version into unstable".

We used to propagate security updates from stable into testing
so that they only have to be done once. But I guess both times
concerns about "not being built within the suite in question" might
apply. But we still do that for packages installed into *stable* (i.e.
across the major divergence between stable and unstable, or
at least into testing).

Kind regards
Philipp Kern 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:55:11AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a
> single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the
> release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people
> from fixing problems created by such carelessness is another one…

Speaking as an ex-RM, I think the answer here is that it used to be that
when a maintainer made such an upload (and it did happen), we would revert
it without hesitation and without apology.

I'm having a hard time deciding, with my TC member hat on, if I think this
is actually an ok thing to do.  But whether or not it's ok, I do think I
would still do it today if I were in your position on the grounds that it's
easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission, and asking explicit
permission from every maintainer who is in a position to become a critical
blocker for the release is a good way to make sure releases don't happen.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Adam D. Barratt]

On 07.02.2013 14:46, Joey Hess wrote:

Cyril Brulebois wrote:

Joey Hess  (07/02/2013):
> This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are
> already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
>
> There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these 
days,
> which I don't really understand. Even when not using it causes 
massive

> and unnecessary logjams in unstable during the freeze.




Yes, that's a good example of spreading FUD aboput using t-p-u, 
rather

than just using it and dealing with any breakage.


If you want to describe being concerned with dak refusing to import the 
result of a britney run due to the version constraints being broken FUD, 
sure. Note that I didn't say it was a reason not to use tpu, just a 
pre-condition in this case.


Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/802784afd7484f8e74647b4d60188...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Joey Hess]

Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Joey Hess  (07/02/2013):
> > This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are 
> > already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
> > 
> > There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
> > which I don't really understand. Even when not using it causes massive
> > and unnecessary logjams in unstable during the freeze.
> 
> 

Yes, that's a good example of spreading FUD aboput using t-p-u, rather
than just using it and dealing with any breakage.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 02:14 PM, Joey Hess wrote:

Howver, that is not the only image provided by Debian that uses
syslinux. The d-i mini.iso is another one, which uses the syslinux
provided by d-i's Build-Depedency, ie the one from unstable.


that has already been discussed in earlier messages.

--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5113b459.1030...@progress-technologies.net

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Joey Hess  (07/02/2013):
> This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are 
> already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.
> 
> There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
> which I don't really understand. Even when not using it causes massive
> and unnecessary logjams in unstable during the freeze.




Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Joey Hess]

Bdale Garbee wrote:
> patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid

syslinux is GPL'd, so this would result in shipping d-i images in wheezy
which contain a GPL'd binary for which there is no source in wheezy.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Joey Hess]

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> >
> >consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
> >steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
> >used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
> >sure about the same that ends up in the final release copy of
> >debian-installer-images, will check later on)).
> 
> Correcting - that used to be the case several years ago, but debian-cd
> now explicitly extracts files from the syslinux(-common) package in
> the main archive at CD build time, using the same suite as used in d-i
> for consistency.

Howver, that is not the only image provided by Debian that uses
syslinux. The d-i mini.iso is another one, which uses the syslinux
provided by d-i's Build-Depedency, ie the one from unstable.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Joey Hess]

Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Sure seems like d-i is something we should build using the components
> of the release it will be contained in and not unstable... but I
> haven't tried to think hard about what that might imply that's
> problematic.  And I certainly don't think this is something we should
> even consider changing at this late date in for wheezy release cycle!

This is not desirable outside the freeze because packages in unstable
that are used to build d-i then don't get tested until they land in
testing.

It might be desirable during the freeze.

> wiggle the d-i build processing to fetch syslinux from testing

This can be done easily, just upload d-i to t-p-u. d-i uploads are 
already built with udebs from testing, for similar reasons.

There seems to be an unholy fear of using t-p-u for anything these days,
which I don't really understand. Even when not using it causes massive
and unnecessary logjams in unstable during the freeze.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 11:17 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:

I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.


http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699808#10

--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51138338.3050...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Samuel Thibault]

Daniel Baumann, le Thu 07 Feb 2013 11:08:55 +0100, a écrit :
> i've already made the case why i want newer syslinux in sid,

I must have missed that, and I can't find it on either bug #699382,
699742 or 699808.

Samuel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130207101700.gh6...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 10:53 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established
that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your
patch too.


as already elaborated, the bug in vbox needs to be fixed anyway, 
regardless what version of syslinux is in the archive.. and if you wait 
until the end of the day, that problem is gone anyway.



  - and above all: that wouldn't gain us anything at all.


which is not an argument.. any package that i don't use/care about 
doesn't give any benefits to me when it get any upload. with that in 
mind, from my point of view, for any package that i don't use, they 
should be never ever touched at all to prevent bringing any (potential) 
bug that could affect me indirectly.


i'm argueing for either an explicit unfrozen sid or an explicit frozen 
sid. since it's neither right now, and you intend to overwrite the 
maintainers decision via CTTE to upload newer syslinux to sid, you need 
to argue against it, not 'doesn't gain anything'.


i've already made the case why i want newer syslinux in sid, and have 
provided patches for the two packages that needs an update for that 
(plus the third and only remaining one, vbox, is in the works).


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51137d37.5040...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:15:42AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>>That doesn't
>>mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
>>since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.
>
>(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against d-i
>and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with syslinux 5.x
>in sid.
>
>even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway
>(judging from debian-cd sources as unfortunately the setup of
>debian-cd on the buildhost is not documented) when invoking
>debian-cd, it doesn't matter at all what version of syslinux is in
>sid.

Already corrected elsewhere (repeating for clarity for people who may
not read all of the thread here) - debian-cd uses syslinux from the
archive at build time.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out
 whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast."
 Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130207095529.gc9...@einval.com

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Daniel Baumann  (07/02/2013):
> On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.
> 
> broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.

If that can't be used with virtualbox (and we already established
that, thanks to Michael's testing), that means it's broken with your
patch too.

> i already commented on 'growing' and why that's wrong.

That…

> > It's time to realize that we had working things, and that you
> > broke athem. Patching reverse dependencies isn't what is going to
> > happen here.
> 
> as elaborated, i disagree. to repeat, again, at minimum, it needs

and “at minimum” doesn't exactly play along very well.

> one (confirming working[0]) patch (to d-i), and steve using the
> wheezy local-copy of syslinux on the cdbuilder for debian-cd. not
> more, not less.

I'm going to repeat it again for you:
 - that's already too much
 - that would still mean known regressions (which you'll try to blame
   on virtualbox, but not going to syslinux 5 means no problem, so just
   let's just not use that)
 - and above all: that wouldn't gain us anything at all.

KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:52:13AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>
>consider such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc
>steve puts a local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be
>used by debian-cd for release images manually on the local fs; not
>sure about the same that ends up in the final release copy of
>debian-installer-images, will check later on)).

Correcting - that used to be the case several years ago, but debian-cd
now explicitly extracts files from the syslinux(-common) package in
the main archive at CD build time, using the same suite as used in d-i
for consistency.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130207095224.gb9...@einval.com

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 10:27 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.


broken without the patch i send for debian-installer, yes.


therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually
affected things are the images within the debian-installer-images


(wrong)


hm?


We're not going to patch various things to cope with syslinux 5 “just
because”. Especially when the list of said things is growing over
time.


i already commented on 'growing' and why that's wrong.


It's time to realize that we had working things, and that you broke
athem. Patching reverse dependencies isn't what is going to happen
here.


as elaborated, i disagree. to repeat, again, at minimum, it needs one 
(confirming working[0]) patch (to d-i), and steve using the wheezy 
local-copy of syslinux on the cdbuilder for debian-cd. not more, not less.


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/511377f9.2030...@progress-technologies.net

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Ansgar Burchardt]

On 02/07/2013 09:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Technically d-i point release updates are built in
> "stable-proposed-updates" and build dependencies are satisfied in stable
> (+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for wheezy
> in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have build-deps satisfied in
> wheezy). t-p-u is frowned upon for normal packages because the release
> team like the testing packages get in unstable, but in the case of d-i the
> only thing that needs to be tested are the installer images which end up
> on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
> are shared between wheezy and sid).
> 
> That said this was never done yet and we're not sure what dak
> would do with the by-hand archive containing the installer images. Maybe
> some ftpmasters could answer on this point?

Uploading d-i images to wheezy (or t-p-u) should work as far as dak is
concerned. They should end in t-p-u and could be copied from there to
wheezy (dak copy-installer), similar to stable updates.

However I'm not sure if this has ever been tested and the RC images of
d-i might not be the best time to try. I also spotted a bug when uploads
would go to t-p-u instead of wheezy in the .changes (which should be
fixed now)...

As Adam already pointed out we would still need another d-i upload to
unstable to make sure unstable has a higher-or-equal version compared to
testing.

Ansgar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/511374cc.1090...@debian.org

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Daniel Baumann  (07/02/2013):
> (ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against
> d-i and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with
> syslinux 5.x in sid.
> 
> even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway
> (judging from debian-cd sources as unfortunately the setup of
> debian-cd on the buildhost is not documented) when invoking
> debian-cd, it doesn't matter at all what version of syslinux is in
> sid.

That means at least broken mini.iso, which is totally unacceptable.

> therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually
> affected things are the images within the debian-installer-images

(wrong)

> tarball built by src:debian-installer, which i believe should be
> possible to fix without too much of a hassle. let me know if you
> want me to come up with a patch for that too.

We're not going to patch various things to cope with syslinux 5 “just
because”. Especially when the list of said things is growing over
time.

It's time to realize that we had working things, and that you broke
athem. Patching reverse dependencies isn't what is going to happen
here.

KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
> are shared between wheezy and sid).

Cyril pointed out to me that this specific point is wrong, while
wheezy/main/installer-* and unstable/main/installer-* have the same
content right now, they are not the same (and thus not shared). There's a
"dak copy-installer" involved to copy the installer from unstable to
wheezy.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130207092243.ga12...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 09:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.


(ftr) which is where i disagree, with the mentioned patch against d-i 
and debian-cd, you can release d-i wheezy rc1, even with syslinux 5.x in 
sid.


even more so: since steve uses a local copy of syslinux anyway (judging 
from debian-cd sources as unfortunately the setup of debian-cd on the 
buildhost is not documented) when invoking debian-cd, it doesn't matter 
at all what version of syslinux is in sid.


therefore, right now, even without any patches, the only actually 
affected things are the images within the debian-installer-images 
tarball built by src:debian-installer, which i believe should be 
possible to fix without too much of a hassle. let me know if you want me 
to come up with a patch for that too.


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/511370be.2070...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Daniel Baumann  (07/02/2013):
> i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:
> 
> On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >>again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
> >>directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
> >>tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it's an isolated thing
> >>that vbox still has that bug in debian.
> >
> >That's called a showstopper.
> 
> you're aware that regardless of syslinux version in sid, the current
> vbox version in wheezy will not be able to boot any post-wheezy
> image at all? so, again, the vbox bug is entirely unrelated to what
> version of syslinux is in sid now and probably should be fixed
> anyway, even in wheezy.

I don't disagree. Having a fixed virtualbox would be nice. That doesn't
mean we should be keeping syslinux 5 in sid in the meanwhile, especially
since that's preventing us from releasing d-i wheezy rc1.

KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

i'm not commenting on unfair accusations, so only to the relevant part:

On 02/07/2013 09:00 AM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:

again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it's an isolated thing
that vbox still has that bug in debian.


That's called a showstopper.


you're aware that regardless of syslinux version in sid, the current 
vbox version in wheezy will not be able to boot any post-wheezy image at 
all? so, again, the vbox bug is entirely unrelated to what version of 
syslinux is in sid now and probably should be fixed anyway, even in wheezy.


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51136947.7020...@progress-technologies.net

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hi,

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> two at a time.  Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
> more than half a year is just nuts to me!  Sure seems like d-i is
> something we should build using the components of the release it will be
> contained in and not unstable... but I haven't tried to think hard about
> what that might imply that's problematic. And I certainly don't think
> this is something we should even consider changing at this late date in
> for wheezy release cycle!

Technically d-i point release updates are built in
"stable-proposed-updates" and build dependencies are satisfied in stable
(+ s-p-u maybe). Similarly it should be possible to build d-i for wheezy
in testing-proposed-updates right now (and have build-deps satisfied in
wheezy). t-p-u is frowned upon for normal packages because the release
team like the testing packages get in unstable, but in the case of d-i the
only thing that needs to be tested are the installer images which end up
on the mirror and not in the package repository (the installer directories
are shared between wheezy and sid).

That said this was never done yet and we're not sure what dak
would do with the by-hand archive containing the installer images. Maybe
some ftpmasters could answer on this point?

I discussed this with Cyril and Julien and they were (rightfully IMO) not keen
on trying this at this point of the release.

That said this whole discussion is interesting and might even help up
in the long term but the real problem is that Daniel is just actively
working against the release team wishes and this is unacceptable to me.
We all know the limitations of our processes, any help to improve them
is welcome, but working against them is not acceptable.

But judging the social behaviour of a developer is not really in the realm
of the tech-ctte and the best technical outcome might not be in line with
the release team's plans.

Thus I would subject to word a resolution along the line of "The tech-ctte
suggests the release team to try out  because , but if the release 
team
doesn't wish to try it out, then the release team has the right to upload
an older version of syslinux to unstable (given that the maintainer
deliberately ignored recommendations of the release team).".

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130207083122.ga11...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Daniel Baumann  (07/02/2013):
> On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
> >been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
> >show up.
> 
> apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and debian-cd)
> that do need to be updated to copy in the additionally required c32
> modules when using vesamenu.c32, there's only vbox broken.

So obvious that you didn't submit any patches against the reverse
build-dependencies you broke unilaterally, without any prior notice?
I always thought of Debian as something which included “team work”
and people interacting with each others to build a nice operating
system. Apparently I was wrong all along.

> while i can see that one is inclined to jump to the conclusion that
> now each and every package in debian needs an update, it really
> isn't so.
> 
> no package is directly interacting with a bootloader, except those
> that create images (debian-installer, debian-cd), or boot images
> *and* have bugs fixed-upstream-long-time-ago-but-not-in-debian
> (vbox).

That's nowhere like anything which could qualify with something
starting with “no package except […]”.

> again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy
> directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've
> tested with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it's an isolated thing
> that vbox still has that bug in debian.

That's called a showstopper.

Last I checked, we have nothing to gain with syslinux 5 apart losing
accumulated testing, having to include patches you can't even come up
with a full list of, hitting known-and-unfixed regressions, and having
to bother tech-ctte instead of just releasing a new d-i.

Thank you so much. Not.

KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 08:12 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:

This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.


apart from the two obvious things (debian-installer and debian-cd) that 
do need to be updated to copy in the additionally required c32 modules 
when using vesamenu.c32, there's only vbox broken.


while i can see that one is inclined to jump to the conclusion that now 
each and every package in debian needs an update, it really isn't so.


no package is directly interacting with a bootloader, except those that 
create images (debian-installer, debian-cd), or boot images *and* have 
bugs fixed-upstream-long-time-ago-but-not-in-debian (vbox).


again, note that any other virtualization software, be it in wheezy 
directly (qemu, kvm) or otherwise (parallels, vmware) which i've tested 
with, has no bugs with syslinux 5. it's an isolated thing that vbox 
still has that bug in debian.


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5113581b.3020...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Michael Biebl]

On 07.02.2013 08:06, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 07:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
>> the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.
> 
> 'obvious'?

Imho, yes. But then, it's not up to me to decide.

>* patch applied against debian-installer to include the additionally
>  required .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32
> 
>* patch applied against debian-cd to include the additionally required
>  .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32
> 
>* cherry-pick upstream commit to fix a bug in vbox

This list is getting longer with each email. Seeing that syslinux 5 has
been in sid for less then 10 days, I'm worried what other issues might
show up.
While I can understand (from personal experience) that freeze-time is
sometimes frustrating, delaying the release even further doesn't help
anyone.
If we want to improve our procedures, how we handle d-i, freeze etc, now
is not the time to discuss/work on this.

Just my 2¢

Michael


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

sorry, forgot to put in the links to the patches..

On 02/07/2013 08:06 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:

   * patch applied against debian-installer to include the additionally
 required .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32


http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699742#30


   * patch applied against debian-cd to include the additionally required
 .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32


http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699884#20

--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/511353a0.3090...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 07:55 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:

I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.


'obvious'?

it requires two straight forward things, that, again, as said, are 
required to be applied for jessie anyway, and are wherey much desired to 
be applied on the wheezy source (to build images with syslinux backports):


  * patch applied against debian-installer to include the additionally
required .c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32

  * patch applied against debian-cd to include the additionally required
.c32 modules when using vesamenu.c32

and fixing one temporary breakage in vbox for convenience:

  * cherry-pick upstream commit to fix a bug in vbox

not more, not less.

--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51135263.3090...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Michael Biebl]

On 07.02.2013 07:58, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 07:45 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Well, VBOX is pretty popular, so shipping an installer which doesn't
>> work for such an environment is certainly a no-go.
> 
> again, the syslinux in sid would not be in wheezy. making it a 
> *temporary* problem until vbox has been fixed in debian (which i'm happy 
> to NMU again, will look to cherry-pick the required patch later today).

I think it is obvious by now that reverting to syslinux 4 from wheezy is
the only sensible way forward at this point in the release.

Michael

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 07:45 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:

Well, VBOX is pretty popular, so shipping an installer which doesn't
work for such an environment is certainly a no-go.


again, the syslinux in sid would not be in wheezy. making it a 
*temporary* problem until vbox has been fixed in debian (which i'm happy 
to NMU again, will look to cherry-pick the required patch later today).


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51135093.7070...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/07/2013 07:35 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:

This makes me wonder what other components are also buggy somehow and
needs to be updated?


first, this is a specific bug in vbox that was fixed some time ago but 
didn't make it into debian yet (because it lags a significant amount of 
upstream releases behind; and yes, i should and will fill a bug about it 
at some later point).



How many (old) hardware machines has something
similar too?  And how much more testing we need to declare that everything
we use is compatible?


second, if you follow the bug, it's affecting sid and doesn't affect 
wheezy release images - they will have the same tested and working 
syslinux version that has proven to be stable during d-i alpha/beta 
images (unless i'm missing something and d-i *release* images are built 
with sid packages as well, in which case i personally would consider 
such a misfeature to be in critical need of a fix (iirc steve puts a 
local copy of the 'to be used' syslinux version to be used by debian-cd 
for release images manually on the local fs; not sure about the same 
that ends up in the final release copy of debian-installer-images, will 
check later on)).


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51134f1d.3070...@progress-technologies.net

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Michael Biebl]

On 07.02.2013 07:30, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].
> 
> that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in 
> current debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real 
> hardware or any other virtualization and it works).

Well, VBOX is pretty popular, so shipping an installer which doesn't
work for such an environment is certainly a no-go.

Michael

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Michael Tokarev]

07.02.2013 10:30, Daniel Baumann wrote:

On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:

Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].


that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in current 
debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real hardware or any other 
virtualization and it works).


This makes me wonder what other components are also buggy somehow and
needs to be updated?  How many (old) hardware machines has something
similar too?  And how much more testing we need to declare that everything
we use is compatible?

Thanks,

/mjt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51134b42.7030...@msgid.tls.msk.ru

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/06/2013 11:48 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:

Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].


that is incorrect; the patch works, it's just the old vbox version in 
current debian testing/sid which has a bug (try the image on real 
hardware or any other virtualization and it works).


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/511349f2.4010...@progress-technologies.net

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Russ Allbery]

Cyril Brulebois  writes:
> Bdale Garbee  (06/02/2013):

>> I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
>> jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better.  It is
>> unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
>> two at a time.  Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
>> more than half a year is just nuts to me!

> How is that different from e.g. refraining to upload new libraries to
> unstable, so that a package needing an upload (say, we need RC bugfixes)
> doesn't pick new dependencies (on libraries not in testing)?

I personally think it's exactly the same problem.  I think the situation
with libraries is regrettable as well.  (Note that, and I'm guessing I
speak for Bdale here too, "regrettable" is not intended to assign any sort
of blame!  This is the best solution that we've been able to come up with
to date as a project.  It's just still has some problems.)

> That's how testing works; and it's been this way for years/releases now
> (since testing replaced frozen, I think).

Yes.  It's always a source of some tension, since there are always people
who would prefer to have a place to continue to do development in an
unstable context even during the release process.  (Cue the standard
debate over the usability of experimental for this purpose -- I'm sure
nearly everyone reading this can fill it in from memory.  *grin*)

If we could find a way to release some of that tension, that would be
great, but it's a hard problem, and there's no way that we're going to
come up with a solution to it right now in the middle of the wheezy
freeze.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87pq0dx6xk@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Bdale Garbee  (06/02/2013):
> I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
> jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better.  It is
> unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
> two at a time.  Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
> more than half a year is just nuts to me!

How is that different from e.g. refraining to upload new libraries to
unstable, so that a package needing an upload (say, we need RC
bugfixes) doesn't pick new dependencies (on libraries not in testing)?

That's how testing works; and it's been this way for years/releases
now (since testing replaced frozen, I think).

> Sure seems like d-i is something we should build using the
> components of the release it will be contained in and not
> unstable...

Why should that source package be special? Yes, it's cumbersome, it
needs many uploads, if only because we need kernel fixes and
improvements, along with fixes for its 100+ components. I'm happy to
consider improvements to the process when we have time for that,
meaning not 8 months into the freeze, but I'd be happy to receive an
answer to the above question.

> And I certainly don't think this is something we should even
> consider changing at this late date in for wheezy release cycle!

I concur.

> I agree that we need to bring this current situation to closure
> quickly so that the RC1 build of d-i for wheezy can proceed.  We
> seem to have three options:
> 
> patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid

And chase all regressions between syslinux 4 and 5? I'd rather not do
that, especially given how tested and working patches are failing to
deliver. Over the last few months on the d-i front, we've had 1 alpha,
4 betas; we would be throwing away the testing efforts of those 5
releases!

> wiggle the d-i build processing to fetch syslinux from testing

See above question, why should we special-case this build-dependency?

> (re-)upload the previous syslinux version with a new epoch

I don't see a better solution than this one.


On a personal note, I'm unsure how we came up with a situation where a
single maintainer can *actively* stall a release… Not caring about the
release process put into place years ago is a thing. Stopping people
from fixing problems created by such carelessness is another one…

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Michael Biebl]

On 06.02.2013 23:22, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Don Armstrong  writes:
>>
>>> Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
>>> releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
>>> CTTE?
>>
>> Earlier in this thread, there had been a couple of reports that fix didn't
>> work.  I haven't looked further, though.
> 
> Yeah, that was for the first incomplete patch. I was referring to the
> second one.

Unfortunately the second patch doesn't work either. See [1].


Cheers,
Michael

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2013/02/msg00115.html

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Russ Allbery]

Bdale Garbee  writes:

> I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
> jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better.  It is
> unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
> two at a time.  Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
> more than half a year is just nuts to me!  Sure seems like d-i is
> something we should build using the components of the release it will be
> contained in and not unstable... but I haven't tried to think hard about
> what that might imply that's problematic.  And I certainly don't think
> this is something we should even consider changing at this late date in
> for wheezy release cycle!

Yes.  This is pretty much exactly how I feel.  And I suspect it's a
general feeling by a lot of people: we freeze for too long, and we don't
like a lot of the implications of that, but we don't know how to do better
and get releases out faster because there's a truly intimidating amount of
work that has to get done to do the release and all the alternatives seem
to make the work even worse.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3qlqdrq@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Bdale Garbee]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> In practice, at least for the last couple of release cycles, we freeze
> unstable for non-leaf packages during the release freeze because otherwise
> it's too difficult with our current infrastructure to finish the
> release.

I personally consider this a regrettable situation, and hope that for
jessie and beyond we can work out how to do this better.  It is
unacceptable to me to "freeze" anything in sid for more than a week or
two at a time.  Holding d-i's build dependencies static in unstable for
more than half a year is just nuts to me!  Sure seems like d-i is
something we should build using the components of the release it will be
contained in and not unstable... but I haven't tried to think hard about
what that might imply that's problematic.  And I certainly don't think
this is something we should even consider changing at this late date in
for wheezy release cycle!

> Given that, I think it makes sense to, as
> Daniel mentioned, make it rather explicit that, yes, unstable is frozen
> for non-leaf packages until we complete the release.  And, in this
> specific case, to revert the syslinux update in unstable (and hopefully
> upload to experimental) so that we're not building d-i against a package
> that isn't part of the release.

I agree that we need to bring this current situation to closure quickly
so that the RC1 build of d-i for wheezy can proceed.  We seem to have
three options:

patch d-i to build successfully against the syslinux in sid

wiggle the d-i build processing to fetch syslinux from testing

(re-)upload the previous syslinux version with a new epoch

The first requires a patch that actually works, and there is at least
one assertion that the patch Daniel pointed to does not.  The second I
can't speak to the complexity of since the last time I looked at d-i was
just before the last stable release.  The third is "easy" to accomplish
but requires agreement from the maintainer or a TC vote to overrule him.

I'm relatively unavailable for the next 24 hours.  Hopefully by then
further investigation and/or discussion will help make it clear which of
the above options we should pursue.

Bdale


pgpy9AV6WD5V5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Don Armstrong  writes:
> 
> > Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
> > releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
> > CTTE?
> 
> Earlier in this thread, there had been a couple of reports that fix didn't
> work.  I haven't looked further, though.

Yeah, that was for the first incomplete patch. I was referring to the
second one.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Let us chat together a moment, my friend. There are still several
hours until dawn, and I have the whole day to sleep.
 -- Count Orlock in _Nosferatu (1922)_

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2013020624.gf17...@rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
> releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
> CTTE?

Earlier in this thread, there had been a couple of reports that fix didn't
work.  I haven't looked further, though.

> [I can understand a bit of wariness of having d-i built with a version
> of syslinux that isn't being distributed in wheezy, but I think that
> might need to be discussed and a technical solution fleshed out
> elsewhere, and probably isn't ripe for a CTTE decision.]

In practice, at least for the last couple of release cycles, we freeze
unstable for non-leaf packages during the release freeze because otherwise
it's too difficult with our current infrastructure to finish the release.
I believe this has even been made explicit in release-team updates,
although I haven't gone back and checked the exact wording.

I concur with Daniel and with Anthony that it does feel like a deficiency
in our tools that we don't have a way to distinguish wheezy-targeted
packages from post-wheezy development and build wheezy-targeted packages
with the build dependencies that will be released with wheezy.  If we had
such a thing, I think it would save the release team some time, since it
would limit the problems caused by uncoordinated library transitions
during the release freeze.  I also concur with Daniel that it can make
development during the release freeze rather annoying when there are
multiple branches of upstream that one wants to follow, since we only have
one other archive available for packages that aren't eligible for release.

But, well, that's the architecture we have right now and we're clearly not
going to fix it immediately.  Given that, I think it makes sense to, as
Daniel mentioned, make it rather explicit that, yes, unstable is frozen
for non-leaf packages until we complete the release.  And, in this
specific case, to revert the syslinux update in unstable (and hopefully
upload to experimental) so that we're not building d-i against a package
that isn't part of the release.

That does take over experimental for that purpose, but, well, there's
always personal repositories; that's what I sometimes do when there are
more branches of development to juggle than there is space in Debian.
It's annoying, and we need better tools, but it's possible.

In the longer term, I think it would be interesting to provide some more
metadata and automation around the whole release request/unblock/build
process than we have right now.  For example, I could see some use in a
system where one has to explicitly tag a package as being targeted for the
next release or not targeted for the next release, which could be
communicated to the buildds in some fashion so that they would build
release-targeted packages against only the release-targeted packages, and
new uploads of release-targeted packages would be automatically diffed and
brought to the release team's attention.  There could even be a convention
for including the justification for the change.  (I can see a lot of
complexity here in how one would have to set up the archive suites, since
you can't just point the buildds at testing since there would be no way to
stage library transitions that *are* going into the release, so let me
note that this is not a well-thought-out proposal, just the sketch of an
idea.)  But that's all outside the scope of tech-ctte deliberation, since
that's technical design, and regardless isn't something that we would do
right now.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vca5rvyu@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Don Armstrong]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013, Julien Cristau wrote:
> - the latest of these uploads breaks the installer, making it
>   impossible to build and upload the planned wheezy release
>   candidate, since build-dependencies are fetched from unstable

> - when asked to revert this change, the syslinux maintainer refused,
>   and said disagreements should be referred to the technical
>   committee

Assuming that the patch for #699742[0] fixes this issue with DI RC
releases being installed, is there still an outstanding issue for the
CTTE?

[I can understand a bit of wariness of having d-i built with a version
of syslinux that isn't being distributed in wheezy, but I think that
might need to be discussed and a technical solution fleshed out
elsewhere, and probably isn't ripe for a CTTE decision.]


Don Armstrong

0: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699742#30 
1: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699742#40

-- 
[Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause".]
I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be "Operation Just 'Cause"?
 -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669&cid=5664907

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130206204100.gd17...@rzlab.ucr.edu

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Milan Kupcevic]

On 02/06/2013 10:38 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 12:55 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
>> version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
>> to require some "fix" to d-i, we'd also have to override the RMs?]
> 
> jftr, i never did nor intended to ask for having syslinux 5 in wheezy.
> what i care about is having it in unstable (for reasons said earlier).
> 

Well, the d-i development is happening in sid. Therefore, this upload
disrupted the development process of syslinux dependent d-i components
that have to end up, but are not yet in wheezy.

Milan




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Daniel Baumann]

On 02/06/2013 12:55 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:

Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
to require some "fix" to d-i, we'd also have to override the RMs?]


jftr, i never did nor intended to ask for having syslinux 5 in wheezy. 
what i care about is having it in unstable (for reasons said earlier).


--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:  daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet:   http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/511278ef.1030...@progress-technologies.net

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Adam D. Barratt]

On 05.02.2013 23:55, Don Armstrong wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Daniel Baumann  
(05/02/2013):

> or:
>
>   * apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
> debian-installer, […]

Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. 
Same

issue, as seen by Michael and myself.


Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
to require some "fix" to d-i, we'd also have to override the RMs?]


Given that the syslinux packages in sid are a different major upstream
version from those in wheezy, with a raw diffstat of

 621 files changed, 36622 insertions(+), 15023 deletions(-)

and that upstream version has been in unstable for a little over a week 
in
total, I'm certainly uncomfortable that accepting the new version at 
this
point would be in the best interest of the release. We've already said 
"no" to
changes in other packages which were significantly smaller and didn't 
carry

the possibility of affecting something as key as the installer.

Shipping an installer that was built with a differing version of 
syslinux
than we eventually ship also causes me concern, since the first update 
to d-i in
a point release will obviously be rebuilt against wheezy's syslinux. 
This
introduces a situation that we can't reasonably test beforehand, as we 
could no
longer be confident that the released version of the wheezy installer 
could be

correctly booted on all of our architectures.

(tl,dr; right now, "yes, we believe the changes are too potentially 
disruptive".)


Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/9700fa19d26232d0f5501dc6bcb64...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Daniel Baumann  (05/02/2013):
> > or:
> > 
> >   * apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
> > debian-installer, […]
> 
> Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. Same
> issue, as seen by Michael and myself.

Is it the intention of the Release Managers not to accept a newer
version of syslinux into wheezy? [That is, if the CTTE were to decide
to require some "fix" to d-i, we'd also have to override the RMs?]


Don Armstrong

-- 
I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back.
 -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130205235509.gm6...@rzlab.ucr.edu

Re: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Cyril Brulebois]

Daniel Baumann  (05/02/2013):
> or:
> 
>   * apply the following tested and working patch from #699742 in
> debian-installer, […]

Except that this “tested and working patch” doesn't fix anything. Same
issue, as seen by Michael and myself.

KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release

[Julien Cristau]

Package: tech-ctte

[cc to syslinux maintainer, debian-release, debian-boot, leader]

Hi,

the background for this request can be found in bug#699382.  Here are
the highlights:
- the debian-installer source package, which builds the installer images
  for debian's releases, build-depends on syslinux
- the release freeze for wheezy started in June 2012, and is now in its
  final stages
- one of the prerequisites for the release is a release candidate for
  the installer
- the syslinux maintainer uploaded new upstream versions of his package
  to unstable, which were unsuitable for wheezy, in November 2012, and
  again at the end of January 2013
- the latest of these uploads breaks the installer, making it impossible
  to build and upload the planned wheezy release candidate, since
  build-dependencies are fetched from unstable
- when asked to revert this change, the syslinux maintainer refused, and
  said disagreements should be referred to the technical committee

The submitters consider this disregard for the Debian release process
not acceptable, and ask that the technical committee
- overrule the syslinux maintainer, and decide that the syslinux package
  in unstable should be reverted to the version currently in wheezy (or a
  version compatible with the release team's freeze policy), until
  the wheezy release
- rule that the syslinux package maintainer should be willing to
  collaborate with maintainers of its reverse-dependencies (and in
  particular the Debian Installer team) in a way that's compatible with
  Debian's release processes, and not against them.

The submitters sincerely hope that all parties can work together for a
speedy resolution to this problem, avoiding further delay to this
release.

Thanks,
Julien Cristau - for the release team
Cyril Brulebois - d-i release manager


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature