Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
27.01.2015 08:59, Christian PERRIER пишет: > (CC'ed in case you guys subscribed to -release. I am subscribed > so please no CC) > > Quoting Michael Tokarev (m...@tls.msk.ru): > >> So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading lies >> (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on debian. > > Given that Cyril is THE person that currently makes Debian Installer > to happen, I would kindly ask you to refrain on such claims, please. Yes, I understand full well Cyril's role in the D-I, and I apprecate it and I'm grateful for that. Really. However in this very case, I told exactly what I think and feel. And I stand on my words, because I think it is true and I'm not quite ready to lie yet. Maybe the same can be expressed differently and worded better. Also, the changes in question has nothing to do with the D-I itself, these are minor changes in packaging and build process which result in the same binary as used by d-i previously. So judjing here with D-I hat on is not exactly wise, because the changes don't affect D-I. > You may have disagreements (which I don't share) but please keep the > tone low and polite. > We have a good release manager for D-I and, believe me, this is hard > to find and you probably don't imagine the hard work he has for every > release. For people who follow Debian closely, they probably noticed > that Cyril obviously went through hard times recently and I felt some > kind of demotivation in his mails, sometimes. I would prefer that > nobody pushes harder in that direction. Agreed 100%. > So, well, your work on busybox is very highly appreciated and > valued. Yes, it was in a bad state and you definitely revived > it. We're all deeply thankful for that. > >> That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of busybox >> the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, because in >> debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. >> >> (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed for >> jessie, >> I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We had it in broken >> state >> for too long.) > > If these changes are needed for jessie, please follow the Debian > release managers guidelines : point which release critical bugs are > fixed by these fixes, and aruge with the Release Team about unblocks > by providing patches (or just copy/pasting them from git) so that one > release manager can make his|her own decision, with the help of > Cyril. That's the exact procedure I followed, after missing the deadline by a few days because I was ill myself, and after a long delay dealing with the static link issue in glibc (#769190). The RC bug has been filed exactly due to that issue with static linking (#768876), so, being ill myself, I rushed to fix it to ensure we wont have the same problem again somewhere else during jessie lifecycle, thinking it is really essential to fix it for jessie. Yes, #768876 is tagged jessie-ignore, but that was just because Aurelien didn't want to add a "hard" (as it turned out) bug before freeze. And yes it took me several iterations to finally fix it for real. Now, the only questionable difference between testing and what I think must be in testing is this adding of Built-Using field for busybox-static (which does not affect d-i in any way as I mentioned before), and minor changes to the build procedure to stop building arch-all package when only arch-specific build is requested - again, does not affect d-i. While the build changes (arch-all vs arch-specific) aren't exactly essential (it was trivial to fix, I was just tired stumbling upon dpkg warning when rebuilding the package while trying to fix #768876), #768876 itself is essential, well-tested finally, and simple. Yet these (packaging-only) changes are being rejected, and I yet to see a reason for that. And while doing that, maintainer (me) is being pissed off and discoraged from even thinking to work on this package again, *and* much more work is being done to cherry-pick the "really-really-necessary" changes to fix stupid bugs which are unimportant (because busybox isn't used in debian in environments where these bugs can be triggered). This is unfair and even stupid thing to do, because it is a way to have more work to undo the _necessary_ things and to redo them again in favour of things which actually aren't important. Why do more when we already have enough and the work is already done?? > If that doesn't happen, then you can't hardly complain. Yes that may > be a PITA work to do because this is indeed really a mandatory > step. This indeed explains why important changes are better done > *before* freezes than during freezes. And, yes, sometimes, the timing > is not so good, given that all upstreams have their own schedule that > doesn't fit Debian's. But we have to live with that. Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsu
Re: Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
(CC'ed in case you guys subscribed to -release. I am subscribed so please no CC) Quoting Michael Tokarev (m...@tls.msk.ru): > So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading lies > (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on debian. Given that Cyril is THE person that currently makes Debian Installer to happen, I would kindly ask you to refrain on such claims, please. You may have disagreements (which I don't share) but please keep the tone low and polite. We have a good release manager for D-I and, believe me, this is hard to find and you probably don't imagine the hard work he has for every release. For people who follow Debian closely, they probably noticed that Cyril obviously went through hard times recently and I felt some kind of demotivation in his mails, sometimes. I would prefer that nobody pushes harder in that direction. So, well, your work on busybox is very highly appreciated and valued. Yes, it was in a bad state and you definitely revived it. We're all deeply thankful for that. > That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of busybox > the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, because in > debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. > > (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed for > jessie, > I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We had it in broken > state > for too long.) If these changes are needed for jessie, please follow the Debian release managers guidelines : point which release critical bugs are fixed by these fixes, and aruge with the Release Team about unblocks by providing patches (or just copy/pasting them from git) so that one release manager can make his|her own decision, with the help of Cyril. If that doesn't happen, then you can't hardly complain. Yes that may be a PITA work to do because this is indeed really a mandatory step. This indeed explains why important changes are better done *before* freezes than during freezes. And, yes, sometimes, the timing is not so good, given that all upstreams have their own schedule that doesn't fit Debian's. But we have to live with that. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
> From aa57d3cc600de9d9ff3e318dc4beed33cfcfd9f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Cyril Brulebois > Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:29:36 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] Document the jessie branching. > > --- > debian/changelog | 8 +++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog > index e78827c..7c18a73 100644 > --- a/debian/changelog > +++ b/debian/changelog > @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@ > -busybox (1:1.22.0-10) UNRELEASED; urgency=low > +busybox (1:1.22.0-14+deb8u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low > > + [ Michael Tokarev ] >* lzop-add-overflow-check-CVE-2014-4607.patch (Closes: #768945) > > + [ Cyril Brulebois ] > + * Branch jessie from master to only include the security fix; other changes > +between 1:1.22.0-9 and 1:1.22.0-14 are invasive and not needed for > jessie. > +Cheat a bit with the revision number to avoid bumping the epoch. So you're continuing to ruin my (hard in this case) work, spreading lies (invasive) and confirming you're against others working on debian. That's fine with me too. I can continue maintain local copy of busybox the same way as I did before I took over its maintenance, because in debian it was in *awful* state and mostly unusable. (For the record: all the recent changes I made in busybox is needed for jessie, I especially and carefully selected the minimal set. We had it in broken state for too long.) Thanks, /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54c71d86.8000...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Kibi, On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:04:53AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Also, is anything planned for busybox? Or do you want an NMU with just > > the CVE fix? > > I had a look a while ago, which resulted in the following local patch > (attached); if you can suggest a suitable version number, and if the > “let's branch from an older version” looks good to you, I can probably > deal with the upload. Thanks. The version number you suggest is fine with me. > Shouldn't be a blocker for the release though I guess you mean the d-i release (not the jessie release). > (even if I understand that having security fixes in jessie sooner is better > than later). Sure, that's exactly my concern. This can obviously happen after the d-i release you're planning today. Cheers, Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150106090747.gc27...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Steven, On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:09:46AM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > On 06/01/15 00:04, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Ivo De Decker (2015-01-06): > >> First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? > > > > Provided Steven/BSD people are fine with it (possibly with urgenting), > > I'm very OK with having it in testing before d-i gets uploaded. I almost > > asked but decided to try and skip some more back and forth. Let's do that > > now anyway, then. :) > > Yes I'm fine with this, thanks. I added the unblock and the unblock-udeb. They should migrate in an hour. Cheers, Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150106090856.gd27...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi! On 06/01/15 00:04, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Ivo De Decker (2015-01-06): >> First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? > > Provided Steven/BSD people are fine with it (possibly with urgenting), > I'm very OK with having it in testing before d-i gets uploaded. I almost > asked but decided to try and skip some more back and forth. Let's do that > now anyway, then. :) Yes I'm fine with this, thanks. (There's a reason I didn't ask for unblocks sooner but that's a long story and unrelated to d-i). Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Ivo, Ivo De Decker (2015-01-06): > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:25:34PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Cyril Brulebois (2014-12-29): > > > here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match > > > this time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but > > > hopefully those should go away automatically when caught by "hint > > > clean" once newer versions have migrated? > > > > Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry > > for the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I > > didn't forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… > > First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? Provided Steven/BSD people are fine with it (possibly with urgenting), I'm very OK with having it in testing before d-i gets uploaded. I almost asked but decided to try and skip some more back and forth. Let's do that now anyway, then. :) > Also, is anything planned for busybox? Or do you want an NMU with just > the CVE fix? I had a look a while ago, which resulted in the following local patch (attached); if you can suggest a suitable version number, and if the “let's branch from an older version” looks good to you, I can probably deal with the upload. Shouldn't be a blocker for the release though (even if I understand that having security fixes in jessie sooner is better than later). > > # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: > > unblock choose-mirror/2.60 > > unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 > > urgent choose-mirror/2.60 > > OK. > > > # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: > > unblock netcfg/1.127 > > unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 > > urgent netcfg/1.127 > > OK. > > > # Preseedability++: > > unblock grub-installer/1.103 > > unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 > > urgent grub-installer/1.103 > > OK. > > > # Doc doc doc! > > unblock installation-guide/20141230 > > That one was easier :) > Unblocked. Many thanks! Mraw, KiBi. From aa57d3cc600de9d9ff3e318dc4beed33cfcfd9f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Cyril Brulebois Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:29:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Document the jessie branching. --- debian/changelog | 8 +++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index e78827c..7c18a73 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@ -busybox (1:1.22.0-10) UNRELEASED; urgency=low +busybox (1:1.22.0-14+deb8u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low + [ Michael Tokarev ] * lzop-add-overflow-check-CVE-2014-4607.patch (Closes: #768945) + [ Cyril Brulebois ] + * Branch jessie from master to only include the security fix; other changes +between 1:1.22.0-9 and 1:1.22.0-14 are invasive and not needed for jessie. +Cheat a bit with the revision number to avoid bumping the epoch. + -- Michael Tokarev Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:59:25 +0300 busybox (1:1.22.0-9) unstable; urgency=medium -- 2.1.3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi, On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:32:11PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Can we please pretend I didn't forget to mention this? ;) We can try, but I can't promise anything. > # Doc doc doc! > unblock installation-guide/20141230 That one was easier :) Unblocked. Cheers, Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150105230705.gc25...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Hi Kibi, On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 10:25:34PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Cyril Brulebois (2014-12-29): > > here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this > > time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those > > should go away automatically when caught by "hint clean" once newer > > versions have migrated? > > Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for > the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't > forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… First of all: would you be ok with an unblock-udeb for kfreebsd-10? Also, is anything planned for busybox? Or do you want an NMU with just the CVE fix? > # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: > unblock choose-mirror/2.60 > unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 > urgent choose-mirror/2.60 OK. > # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: > unblock netcfg/1.127 > unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 > urgent netcfg/1.127 OK. > # Preseedability++: > unblock grub-installer/1.103 > unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 > urgent grub-installer/1.103 OK. Cheers, Ivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150105230531.gb25...@ugent.be
Re: Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Cyril Brulebois (2015-01-05): > Cyril Brulebois (2014-12-29): > > here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this > > time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those > > should go away automatically when caught by "hint clean" once newer > > versions have migrated? > > Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for > the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't > forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… > > > # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: > unblock choose-mirror/2.60 > unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 > urgent choose-mirror/2.60 > > # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: > unblock netcfg/1.127 > unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 > urgent netcfg/1.127 > > # Preseedability++: > unblock grub-installer/1.103 > unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 > urgent grub-installer/1.103 Can we please pretend I didn't forget to mention this? ;) # Doc doc doc! unblock installation-guide/20141230 Thanks, and sorry for the noise. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Last hints for d-i, upload tomorrow
Cyril Brulebois (2014-12-29): > here's another round I've just compiled, so versions should match this > time. A few of them have (outdated) hints currently but hopefully those > should go away automatically when caught by "hint clean" once newer > versions have migrated? Last round, would be perfect if in place before the 1000Z run (sorry for the short notice). The 2200Z would have been a nice idea if I didn't forget about uploading choose-mirror, which is on its way… # Usual-yet-easily-forgotten-about: unblock choose-mirror/2.60 unblock-udeb choose-mirror/2.60 urgent choose-mirror/2.60 # Not immensely needed but I lost track of it in the past few weeks: unblock netcfg/1.127 unblock-udeb netcfg/1.127 urgent netcfg/1.127 # Preseedability++: unblock grub-installer/1.103 unblock-udeb grub-installer/1.103 urgent grub-installer/1.103 I've tested the latter in the three default configurations (whole disk, LVM, encrypted LVM) as well as with things like RAID1, with no bad surprises, so let's restore possibilities for automation. > I'll try and give btrfs things a shot a few hours from now, so that I > can decide what to do with the pending request about lzo2. That was handled and lzo2's hit testing in the meanwhile. > If I'm not hitting any major blocker during some testing over the next > few days, we might be looking at a release during the first days of > 2015. The upload should happen somewhen in the European afternoon after the 1000Z changes in testing are mirror-visible. Thanks! Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
