Hi Mattia, Thanks for the feedback and questions.
Some clarification: 1) I didn't provide any debdiffs because I didn't need to modify the package. I'm happy to help with the maintenance but it would be probably be better served with those with more cycles and experience, if they deem it worth the effort. 2) Didn't include jammy since I didn't try and reproduce and it seemed to be fixed with the version currently in jammy, 1:2.6.1-1ubuntu1. If someone can verify that it's fixed with 1:2.6.1-1ubuntu1 then I don't see any reason why that couldn't be backported instead. 3) Agreed, defer as to whether the effort is worth the benefit. Given the lack of anyone else making noise being affected for how old the package is, I suspect it is not. 4) Unaware of what machinations need to happen when a bug is fixed in a replaced package. My quick and dirty backport worked for me but I'm unaware of the other implications, my assumptions were that the standard "Depends" semantics would work, but I think what you're saying is that the bug should have been filed against the other package? 5) Defer to the package maintainers and those more familiar with the use-cases and expectations are. My assumption was that much of this is esoteric and poorly documented enough to require some degree of manual care anyway, but what I'm hearing is that the risk of incompatibilities from dropping in such a major bump outweighs the benefit of avoiding requiring a manual rebuild. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Backporters, which is subscribed to the bug report. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2012676 Title: [BPO] nfs-utils/1:2.6.1-2ubuntu4 from kinetic To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/+bug/2012676/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-backports mailing list ubuntu-backports@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
