On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 01:33:12PM +0000, Robie Basak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 09:49:17PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > It's not ideal for an interface to go from unsupported to mandatory in a > > single LTS cycle; but I don't believe that the use case of creating a > > filesystem with one LTS release, then interacting with it using the > > userspace tools from a previous LTS release, is significant enough to > > justify holding back features that upstream has recommended as the default. > > > > I think it suffices to document this in the release notes. > > Thanks. What's your opinion on an SRU to Xenial and/or to Trusty that > allows e2fsprogs to understand the future filesystem feature? Assuming > that no default behaviour would be changed for stable release users, > would this be acceptable to you in principle? > > To the rest of the SRU team: any objections to somebody driving this? > I'm not necessarily committing to this wearing my Canonical Server Team > hat, but "enyc" in #ubuntu-devel seems quite interested in driving an > SRU, so it would be useful to get opinions now to avoid any wasted work.
I think it might be useful to snap e2fsprogs, so we have a solution for all older releases. Not to replace the package, but as a backport that does not conflict with the system binaries. Or introduce e2fsprogs-hwe packages to match the hwe kernel which support the new features. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam