[email@example.com: Re: autofs 4.1.4 in sarge]
This is perhaps relevant for the 4.1.3+4.1.4beta2-8 upload. Looks like we
have three options:
1) Let 4.1.4beta2-8 go into sarge, fixing one important bug (#304245) but
letting others (#297359) pass. (Looks like my Closes: line in 4.1.4beta2-8
was too broad; I'll reopen #297359 later today.)
2) Try to backport more fixes from 4.1.4 final into a 4.1.4beta2-9, fixing
the other important bug (#297359) as well.
3) Just let 4.1.4 final in; trying to backport stuff from 4.1.4 to 4.1.4beta2
might be a lot less stable than just taking 4.1.4 in (and there are
nothing but bugfixes from 4.1.4beta2 to 4.1.4 final anyhow).
What are your thoughts on this? I'd much prefer #3, but I've been told
earlier it's out of the question...
/* Steinar */
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:52:25PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:40:05PM -0300, Daniel Andre Vaquero wrote:
> >> Thanks. Let me know if the testing is OK (I've never seen the problem myself,
> >> despite using autofs for NFS mounts quite a lot in production) and I'll
> >> unmerge the bugs and do the upload. (I'd probably prefer two separate patches
> >> if that isn't too much work, but it isn't critical.)
> > Ok, I'll wait one more day. What do you mean by two separate patches?
> You merged two patches to make the backport, no?
Sorry for the delay in responding, I had a busy day yesterday.
No, it was just non-replicated-ping.patch. I have tested the backport
and it fixes #304245. But I can't say the same thing about #297359: I
made a test case with the bug submitter's example and it fails. To fix
this, I also had to include a diff from 4.1.4_beta2's parse_sun.c to 4.1.4
and mount-parse-fix.patch from kernel.org. But I hadn't had the time to
look at this file more closely, and verify if there are fixes to other
bugs included in it as well (that wouldn't be allowed by the release
--- End Message ---