Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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
Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (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
Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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
Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
Daniel Baumann daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net (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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:08:55AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: 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'. Daniel, I don't think this is the place for such a broad discussion. I believe we would all agree that a frozen distro development (no matter the suite where it happens) is a PITA that we could all live without. But at present, this is what our release processes and technologies offer. Like it or not. It would be very nice to improve them, and I've high hopes that dak based personal package archives would help a lot with that, but this is not the time for this kind of changes. More importantly, it is arguably false that sid is not explicitly frozen. The freeze policy [1], which has been repeatedly announced on d-d-a, reads: Please also note that since many updates (hopefully, the vast majority) will still be going in through unstable, major changes in unstable right now can disrupt efforts to get RC bugs fixed. We don't ask you not to make changes in unstable, but we do ask that you be aware of the effects your changes can have -- especially if you maintain a library. Please continue to keep disruptive changes out of unstable and continue making use of experimental where appropriate. Note that you can stage NEW uploads in experimental to avoid disruption in unstable. [1]: http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html by evidence, your change to unstable has been disruptive. I understand (better, I trust your claim on that, but I haven't checked) that experimental is not a viable path for syslinux development. But that is no justification for getting in the way of a release, going explicitly against the freeze policy. Please put back in sid the syslinux version that the release team wants to see in there. Ideally, it wouldn't be for long, and an action of that kind will avoid burning cycles of all the people participating in this thread. I'm pretty sure we can all use those cycles to the betterment of Wheezy instead. As soon as Wheezy is out of the door, please re-raise this topic in a project-wide place, where we can work on solutions to avoid this kind of frustrating long freezes. That would be the appropriate time and place for this kind of discussions. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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
Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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
Bug#699808: Bug#699742: Bug#699808: tech-ctte: syslinux vs the wheezy release
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-ctte-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
