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

Re: which udev release for wheezy?

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 19:40:19 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> Due to my day job commitments[1] I have been unable to work on udev 
> for the last six months[2].
> My original plan was to ship in wheezy udev 182, which was released 
> in March, but I missed the freeze deadline and I know that uploading 
> it now without comments would not be approved by the release team.
> There are no significant functional differences between 175 and 182, 
> except for it depending on devtmpfs (which is not a problem for us), 
> but the source trees are very different due to some big source 
> reorganization which happened in release 176 (files were moved and 
> some external binaries have become builtin).
> I believe that the very small number of changes since 176 (released on 
> january 11) show that upstream udev 182 is a stable release suitable 
> for wheezy.
> The alternative is to ship udev 175 (the version currently in testing) 
> with 35-40 backported patches to fix its bugs.
> As the udev maintainer and frequent upstream contributor since it 
> exists, it is my opinion that attempting to ship udev 175 + patches
> would be very time consuming and probably deliver a package with more 
> bugs.
> While it may be be possible to backport all the newer fixes to 175, 
> I fear that this would introduce subtle bugs due to the big source 
> changes in 183, and then we would end up anyway with something 
> unsupported and hated by the upstream maintainers.
> My proposal for wheezy is to:
> - immediately fix a few major packaging issues of udev 175 in testing
> - upload udev 182 to unstable and keep it there for a few months
> - evaluate migrating 182 to testing later (in september?)
Hi Marco,

sorry this reply is so late.  This lateness makes shipping 182 rather
more problematic than it was a couple months ago.  Would it be possible
to give us an idea of which of the bugs currently filed against the udeb
package are fixed in the newer version?  And what packaging bugs you
want to fix?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: