Bug#295422: e2fsprogs for Sarge

[Horms <horms@verge.net.au>]

Hi Ted,

I hope that all is well. I am writing to you about an old problem with
the e2fsprogs that has unfortunately resurfaced in testing and I am
looking for some advice on the best way forward.

In a nutshell the problem is bug 295422. You fixed this in e2fsprogs
0.35-7, a versioned dependancy was added to kernel-image-amd64 2.6.8-12
and the bug was closed. So far, so good.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=295422

Unfortunately the version of kernel-image-amd64 in testing is 2.6.8-11,
so the versioned dependancy is not there. We also have e2fsprogs 0.35-6
in testing, which means that bug 295422 manifests in testing.

Normally this would just be a matter of waiting for the new versions
to filter down to testing, but as part of the attempts to get sarge
released, testing was fozen a little while ago, so changes aren't
propogating, while unstable marches on (bit of a process problem is
an understatement, but lets save that discussion for another day).

The real problem for Debian is that we need a to update e2fsprogs in
testing, but we are unsure of the best version to use. I notice that the
version in testing is quite a lot newer, e2fsprogs 1.37-1. This presents
two issues, firstly I've been advised by Steve Langasek that small
incremental changes are quite desirable at this point. And secondly,
there is a pending issue with e2fsprogs 1.37-1 wherby mke2fs fails on
ia64, bug 302200.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=302200

In short, we are looking for your advice on which version of e2fsprogs
to include in sarge. My understanding is that appart from this issue,
0.35-6 seems to be quite fine. Here are some ideas that I have.  I am
not sure of the versining gymnastics that need to occur to make this
happen, perhaps none, Steve Langasek can advise.

  * Inculde 0.35-7 verbatim in sarge
  * Include 0.35-8 verbatim in sarge
  * Include 0.35-6 + just the fix for 302200 in sarge
  * Include 1.37-2 (as yet unreleased) in sarge
      this would require some considerable review and is thus
      likely the slowest option.

You probably have other ideas, which is why we are here.

Best wishes

-- 
Horms

Appendix

For reference, so everything is in one place,
  
  Testing has  kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-11 which is built
  against kernel-tree-2.6.8-13 which is also in testing.

  Unstable has kernel-image-2.6.8-amd64 2.6.8-12 which is built
  against kernel-tree-2.6.8-14 which is not available in testing.

  And before you ask, ues this packaging is going to be unified,
  but much to some people's chagirn, probably not until after sarge
  (we are frozen, right?).