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

Re: Stable update proposed for ganeti (fixing #528618)

Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Iustin Pop wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 08:05:15PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'd like to update ganeti to stable-proposed-updates to fix the above
>>>> bug. It's a simple one-line change; I see only one potential breakage
>>>> out of it - if people already did the symlink fix pointed out in the
>>>> bug, but with the symlink pointing to a different version of Xen,
>>>> then this version will change what xen version they use. More
>>>> clearly: - if currently /usr/lib/xen points to anything else than
>>>>   /usr/lib/xen-3.2-1, then
>>>> - this upload will break people's HVM-based clusters
>>>> Here is the proposed diff:
>>> […]
>>>> Let me know if this is OK or not, or if you need more information.
>>> Ping? Did I miss some crucial information that is needed?
>> The one thing that concerns me is the potential breakage you raised
>> yourself.  Is it possible to detect that the user has moved the
>> symlink and leave it as-is?
> Well, if we're looking at a minimal diff then not.
> Basically, upstream has hardcoded /usr/lib/xen, but Lenny has
> /usr/lib/xen-3.2-1. The current patch just changes the hardcoded path.
> A flexible solution would be to change this to /usr/lib/xen-ganeti,
> which would be a symlink created at package install time to point to
> either /usr/lib/xen (if it already exists, which means users have
> customized their system to fit the current buggy upstream) or to
> /usr/lib/xen-3.2-1 (or the first xen directory found).
> This would mean a bigger diff, and seems to me slightly worse than a
> NEWS.Debian entry detailing the change; but granted, it would be
> automatic. What is usually done in a such a situation?

I would go for just changing the hardcoded path and adding a NEWS.Debian
entry. Please do mention the bugreport (#528618).



Reply to: