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

Re: Bug#627837: linux-2.6: Aufs apparently silently dropped, breaking debian-live

Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net> writes:

> On 05/29/2011 10:34 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> The maintainers have already made that call, and I don't see a reason to
>> override their decision.
> so no change after squeeze, the release team gives a shit about breaking
> debian-live, sigh. but don't worry, from now on, i will not care anymore
> either.

I believe your address is wrong. This is neither about the release team,
nor the kernel team.

As for the kernel team, the message they sent you over a year ago should
be pretty clear (and it wasn't the first one AFAIK):

They way I read that message, it has:
1) a requirement that aufs2 is going to be updated to work with upstream
   kernel releases
2) no promise that the kernel team will do this work, or even aid it
3) no promise about this support continuing forever (more than a year
   might be considered more than "a while" by many)
4) absolutely no promise that "a while" will last until wheezy is
5) a polite request that you do whatever you can to aid in development
   of union mounts

Did you read something else?

In the mean time, we've seen dicussions like this one:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/23/72 where the fact that Debian includes
aufs2 is abused as an argument against union mounts!  Where were you in
that discussion?  Ben did what he could, but I wouldn't be suprised if
most people just thought: "Used by Debian" == "must be OK".  For a reason.
It usually works like that :-)

But it is pretty clear that the outcome of that thread could have been
quite another if you and Ben had presented the union mount ready
debian-live and a plan for getting that into wheezy instead of aufs2.

Please stop this nonsense now, and start working with the kernel team
instead of against them.  And that also means working with upstream
kernel maintainers, who have been pretty clear wrt the future of aufs2:
There is none.


Reply to: