Hi Russ, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 07:39:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > The version of OpenAFS in testing has an annoying init script issue that > can also cause it to fail to start under some circumstances, and I'm > seriously considering a testing-proposed-updates upload to fix that: > * Handle modules named either with or without the .mp extension on SMP > hosts. (Closes: #305389, #307280, #307797) > Judging from the bug reports, it caused a fair amount of confusion and one > problem at the important severity level because it can hit people during > upgrades. See the log for #305389 for most of the analysis. If a minimally-intrusive solution can be found, I would probably accept it into sarge. > However, I'm not quite sure what to do about the problems the version in > testing has with newer 2.6 kernels (#303495) or with 2.6 preempt kernels > (#308399, #304040). (See below for discussion on the severity and tagging > of #308399.) These bugs are fixed in upstream 1.3.82, but the diff > between that and 1.3.81 is, er, extensive. I took a look at pulling > specific deltas from upstream just for these problems, but I'm not sure > I'm correctly identifying which ones I'd need and the diff is still likely > to be sizeable. FYI: $ grep PREEMPT /boot/config-2.6.8-2-686-smp CONFIG_PREEMPT=y $ dpkg -S /boot/config-2.6.8-2-686-smp kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686-smp: /boot/config-2.6.8-2-686-smp $ apt-cache policy kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686-smp kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686-smp: Installed: 2.6.8-13 Candidate: 2.6.8-13 Version Table: *** 2.6.8-13 0 500 http://debian.oregonstate.edu testing/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ I know the Debian kernel team was hoping to have preempt disabled for sarge, but unfortunately this was an ABI-breaking change that was proposed too late. This means that 308399 should most likely be considered RC, if it affects 2.6.8 w/ preempt and the openafs package is advertised as working with 2.6. However, this may be nothing more than a documentation issue, since the default kernel for sarge is still 2.4, and there is no requirement that a kernel patch/module package work with *all* kernel versions we offer. > So far as I can tell, these bugs do not affect the 2.6 kernel supplied by > Debian in sarge. I'm not sure, however, if the preempt problems might > affect the sarge kernel if built with preempt. These problems will cause > serious difficulties for anyone using a newer 2.6 kernel. Well, if you've tested the sarge 2.6 kernels and not been able to reproduce the problem, then it's pretty definitely not RC. :) > #308399 is severity grave at the moment. I tagged it sid, which is sort > of true and sort of not -- the bug is present in the package in sarge, but > is not triggered by the sarge kernel. It only affects preempt kernels, > but certainly the system not shutting down and unmounting file systems > cleanly is a serious problem if one happens to run into it. That's a reasonable use of the "sid" tag. > Given this, should I consider a backport of 1.3.82 for sarge? Or try to > pull individual deltas (in which case, testing is going to be *very* > important to make sure that I didn't miss some code dependency when > cherry-picking patches) and still end up with a fairly sizeable diff? > Any advice on this would be welcome. What Joey said; actually trying to get this kernel incompatibility fixed for sarge sounds horribly error-prone. > If I do prepare a testing-proposed-updates upload for sarge, with or > without trying to backport 1.3.82 fixes, I'll probably also include: > > * README.modules: Add documentation for module-assistant and recommend > it when using Debian kernels. Mention divergences from upstream in > module naming. (Closes: #253168) Emphasize that the kernel source > tree used for make-kpkg must be identically configured to the kernel > the module will be used with. > > * README.Debian: Document that the client cache partition must be ext2 > or ext3 and that XFS and ReiserFS will not work. upserver and > upclient are now provided. Provide some information about why > kaserver is not provided. (Closes: #249315) > > as documentation fixes; I expect that will be uncontroversial. Yep, per the freeze policy. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature