Control: tags -1 patch Hi all, As nobody replied to my request for help, I have come up with the attached proposal. However, I *guessed* that the best advise we can give to users of aufs-dkms is to migrate away from aufs-dkms *before* upgrading to bullseye. Is that guess correct? If not, what should we advise our users? Paul
From b57d7ed3a3f21c3605dab0335604d74ed35a83b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 21:01:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] issues.dbk: aufs is not part of bullseye Closes: #963964 --- en/issues.dbk | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/en/issues.dbk b/en/issues.dbk index 43c9534e..2079c0be 100644 --- a/en/issues.dbk +++ b/en/issues.dbk @@ -670,6 +670,24 @@ Environment=SYSTEMD_SULOGIN_FORCE=1 3. </para> </listitem> + <listitem> + <para> + The <systemitem role="package">aufs-dkms</systemitem> + package is not part of bullseye. Most <systemitem + role="package">aufs-dkms</systemitem> users should be + able to switch to kernel supported + <literal>overlayfs</literal> to get similar + functionality. However, it's possible to have a Debian + installation on a filesystem that is not compatible with + <literal>overlayfs</literal>, + e.g. <literal>xfs</literal> without + <literal>d_type</literal>. Users of <systemitem + role="package">aufs-dkms</systemitem> are advised to + migrate away from <systemitem + role="package">aufs-dkms</systemitem> before upgrading + to bullseye. + </para> + </listitem> </itemizedlist> </para> -- 2.30.2
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature