[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: rescue_1.100_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable



Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Pascal and Nicholas,
>
> Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> (2025-04-22):
>>    [ Pascal Hambourg and Nicholas D Steeves ]
>>    * Add preliminary support for rescuing Debian installed to a btrfs
>>      subvolume (Closes: #1018894, #1103476).  Supported rescue cases are:
>>      1. The default installation to @rootfs (bookworm and later)
>>      2. The default installation to subvolid=5 (buster or earlier).
>>         "subvolid=5" was chosen over "subvol=/" for maximum disambiguation.
>
> Sorry for the stupid question, but this seems to leave a hole, as
> bullseye (11) can be found between buster (10) and bookworm (12). Is
> that correct, or is there a typo somewhere?

No stupid at all.  Curse the 3Bs!  Yes, the correct line is:

-       1. The default installation to @rootfs (bookworm and later)
+       1. The default installation to @rootfs (bullseye and later)


> (I don't really have the time/energy to dive back into the bug logs, or
> to try and figure out on my own what's actually supported. I also do
> realize the “preliminary” word appears in the changelog entry.)

Np, it's done.

> This isn't really time-critical, and I don't need a detailed answer
> (e.g. “bullseye is unsupported for now” or “woops, s/buster/bullseye/”
> or “woops, s/bookworm/bullseye/” would be more than enough); I'd just
> like to make sure I can write an accurate release announcement in the
> next few days.

Thanks :) That said, the 0.101 issue made it an issue, so might as well...

> Thanks already!

NP, wish I had done more months ago.

Cheers,
Nicholas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: