Re: Bug#947351: cloud-init 20.2-2~deb10u1 flagged for acceptance
On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 12:31 -0700, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Adam (2020.07.09_13:19:23_-0700)
> > The upload referenced by this bug report has been flagged for
> > acceptance into the proposed-updates queue for Debian buster.
>
> FWIW, this update included a change that broke the Debian images for
> at least one hosting provider.
>
> We noticed when provisioning a Debian 10.5 image on Hetzner Cloud,
> that no Ethernet interfaces where being configured.
Yay. :-(
> Hetzner had "include /etc/network/interfaces.d/*.cfg" in their
> /etc/network/interfaces.
>
> Before 19.2 cloud-init wrote /etc/network/interfaces.d/50-cloud-
> init.cfg
> After 19.2 cloud-init wrote /etc/network/interfaces.d/50-cloud-init
> Relevant upstream commit:
> https://github.com/canonical/cloud-init/commit/a6faf3acef02bd8cd4d46ac9efeebf24b3f21d81
I must admit that I'm slightly confused by that commit.
The rationale is that the default file written by ifupdown uses
"source-directory", which will not read foo.cfg. However, the commit
that it points to clearly shows that the "source" directive is used
instead, and the manpage (as also pointed to by the cloud-init commit)
does not suggest that any such naming restriction applies to "source",
so far as I can see.
> This doesn't break Debian installs that had the default
> /etc/network/interfaces. But if it caused a regression for one
> provider,
> it probably caused regressions for others too.
>
> Not sure what the right approach in Debian is, here. Whether there
> should be a new bug filed against cloud-init in stable?
If there's going to be a change proposed for the package in stable,
then there'll certainly need to be a new release.d.o bug, as this one
relates to a package that has already been included in a point release.
My inclination is that this should probably be reverted in unstable,
and then that change backported to stable, as per my above analysis.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: