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

Bug#1034287: marked as done (unblock: dkms/3.0.10-8)

Your message dated Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:04:34 +0200
with message-id <ZDaeUqgydkZdk+Y5@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1034287: unblock: dkms/3.0.10-8
has caused the Debian Bug report #1034287,
regarding unblock: dkms/3.0.10-8
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1034287: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1034287
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package dkms

[ Reason ]
Lots of bugfixes, especially a behavioral regression from bullseye
(inconsistent success/failure depending of the installation order of
foo-dkms and linux-headers-something).

[ Impact ]
Currently there are some unneccessary dkms-related upgrade failures.
(This does not intend to fix kernel postinst aka dkms failing due to
(third-party) dkms modules incompatible with newer kernels. That is not
a regression. All *-dkms packages in bookworm are compatible with the
kernels in bookworm and make use of Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-dkms)

[ Tests ]
Most of the patches are cherry-picked from upstream or waiting to be
merged upstream.
Most fixes also have tests added to the upstream testsuite, stripped
while cherry-picking since they depend on additional testing
infrastructure improvements.
For improving the autopkgtest coverage of dkms in Debian CI see
dkms 3.0.10-9 in experimental and #1033900.

[ Risks ]
dkms has been neglected for too long ...
It's quite possible that further improved testing will uncover more bugs
that have been lingering around. Since I've dug into codebase now, I
should be able attempt fixing more ...

[ Checklist ]
  [x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
  [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
  [x] attach debdiff against the package in testing

[ Other info ]
Once all my fixes (and most of the other patches we carry) got merged
upstream, I'll try to get a new upstream release and upload that s.t.
we get even more fixes and the improved testsuite.

unblock dkms/3.0.10-8

+dkms (3.0.10-8) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  * Disable tests broken by fix-builtin-archive-dkms-coinstallation.patch.
+    (Closes: #1033396)
+  * Run autopkgtest for all architectures using the headers from the
+    linux-headers-generic (virtual) meta-package.
That virtual package does not exist on armel, I'll add an alternative
test dependency for armel in the next upload.

+  * Generate dh_dkms.1 at build time.
+  * Clean up /boot/*.old-dkms on upgrades from bullseye.  (Closes: #717584)
+  * Clean up obsolete /etc/dkms/sign_helper.sh on upgrades. (Closes: #1019563)
+  * dkms-autopkgtest: Try to 'dkms install' its BUILD_DEPENDS before testing a
+    module. (Single level only, without recursion.)
This fixes an autokgtest regression in src:nvidia-cuda-samples (on
behalf of src:nvidia-cuda-toolkit which cannot have autopkgtests on its
own due to the size of the source package).
nvidia-fs-dkms is the only package in the archive using BUILD_DEPENDS in
its dkms.conf and I only recently fixed its support for the bookworm kernel.

+  * Fix fallback value for BUILD_MODULE_NAME[0].  (Closes: #651973)
+  * dkms.8: Clarify 'dkms add' arguments.  (Closes: #704917)
+  * Print a warning if /proc is not mounted.  (Closes: #810665, #968074)
+  * dkms_autoinstaller: Skip autoinstall if headers are missing (like
+    dkms_common.postinst).  (Closes: #1030595)
+  * Use return code 77 if skipping due to BUILD_EXCLUSIVE_*.
This caused some regression in Ubuntu since some script (not present in
Debian) expected to old return code.

+  * Sort kernels by version.
+
+ -- Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>  Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:01:26 +0200
+
+dkms (3.0.10-7) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+  [ Dimitri John Ledkov ]
+  * Fix release regression preventing co-installing in-archive dkms
+    packages with kernels that built-in identical or newer versions of the
+    same dkms package. LP: #2008269
+
+ -- Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>  Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:02:08 +0100


Andreas

Attachment: dkms-3.0.10-8.diff.gz
Description: application/gzip


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2023-04-12 13:04:57 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> 
> Please unblock package dkms
> 
> [ Reason ]
> Lots of bugfixes, especially a behavioral regression from bullseye
> (inconsistent success/failure depending of the installation order of
> foo-dkms and linux-headers-something).
> 
> [ Impact ]
> Currently there are some unneccessary dkms-related upgrade failures.
> (This does not intend to fix kernel postinst aka dkms failing due to
> (third-party) dkms modules incompatible with newer kernels. That is not
> a regression. All *-dkms packages in bookworm are compatible with the
> kernels in bookworm and make use of Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-dkms)
> 
> [ Tests ]
> Most of the patches are cherry-picked from upstream or waiting to be
> merged upstream.
> Most fixes also have tests added to the upstream testsuite, stripped
> while cherry-picking since they depend on additional testing
> infrastructure improvements.
> For improving the autopkgtest coverage of dkms in Debian CI see
> dkms 3.0.10-9 in experimental and #1033900.
> 
> [ Risks ]
> dkms has been neglected for too long ...
> It's quite possible that further improved testing will uncover more bugs
> that have been lingering around. Since I've dug into codebase now, I
> should be able attempt fixing more ...
> 
> [ Checklist ]
>   [x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
>   [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
>   [x] attach debdiff against the package in testing
> 
> [ Other info ]
> Once all my fixes (and most of the other patches we carry) got merged
> upstream, I'll try to get a new upstream release and upload that s.t.
> we get even more fixes and the improved testsuite.
> 
> unblock dkms/3.0.10-8

unblocked

Cheers

> 
> +dkms (3.0.10-8) unstable; urgency=medium
> +
> +  * Disable tests broken by fix-builtin-archive-dkms-coinstallation.patch.
> +    (Closes: #1033396)
> +  * Run autopkgtest for all architectures using the headers from the
> +    linux-headers-generic (virtual) meta-package.
> That virtual package does not exist on armel, I'll add an alternative
> test dependency for armel in the next upload.
> 
> +  * Generate dh_dkms.1 at build time.
> +  * Clean up /boot/*.old-dkms on upgrades from bullseye.  (Closes: #717584)
> +  * Clean up obsolete /etc/dkms/sign_helper.sh on upgrades. (Closes: #1019563)
> +  * dkms-autopkgtest: Try to 'dkms install' its BUILD_DEPENDS before testing a
> +    module. (Single level only, without recursion.)
> This fixes an autokgtest regression in src:nvidia-cuda-samples (on
> behalf of src:nvidia-cuda-toolkit which cannot have autopkgtests on its
> own due to the size of the source package).
> nvidia-fs-dkms is the only package in the archive using BUILD_DEPENDS in
> its dkms.conf and I only recently fixed its support for the bookworm kernel.
> 
> +  * Fix fallback value for BUILD_MODULE_NAME[0].  (Closes: #651973)
> +  * dkms.8: Clarify 'dkms add' arguments.  (Closes: #704917)
> +  * Print a warning if /proc is not mounted.  (Closes: #810665, #968074)
> +  * dkms_autoinstaller: Skip autoinstall if headers are missing (like
> +    dkms_common.postinst).  (Closes: #1030595)
> +  * Use return code 77 if skipping due to BUILD_EXCLUSIVE_*.
> This caused some regression in Ubuntu since some script (not present in
> Debian) expected to old return code.
> 
> +  * Sort kernels by version.
> +
> + -- Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>  Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:01:26 +0200
> +
> +dkms (3.0.10-7) unstable; urgency=medium
> +
> +  [ Dimitri John Ledkov ]
> +  * Fix release regression preventing co-installing in-archive dkms
> +    packages with kernels that built-in identical or newer versions of the
> +    same dkms package. LP: #2008269
> +
> + -- Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>  Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:02:08 +0100
> 
> 
> Andreas



-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---
Reply to: