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