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

Bug#1052561: marked as done (bookworm-pu: package nfdump/1.7.3-1 (pre-discussion))



Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:17:46 +0000
with message-id <Z4J9iqa_M26JCMdO@powdarrmonkey.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#1052561: bookworm-pu: package nfdump/1.7.3-1 (pre-discussion)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1052561,
regarding bookworm-pu: package nfdump/1.7.3-1 (pre-discussion)
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.)


-- 
1052561: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1052561
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: bookworm
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: nfdump@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:nfdump

[ Reason ]
I am proposing updating updating the nfdump package to a new _upstream_ release
in bookworm.

I made the judgement to switch to the new nfdump 1.7 series in the bookworm
release cycle. This has turned out to be premature. The 1.7.1 release we
shipped in bookworm was under rapid development.

One of the most popular applications for nfdump is to run it together with
nfsen, a PHP based webfrontend to collect and analyze netflows. This one also
has been under rapid development during the bookworm freeze.

It turns out that at least in some cases nfdump does not work well with recent
nfsen versions, see Bug#1042535. The likely commit has been identified, but it
was impossible to backport it due to the major source restructuring nfdump
1.7.x went through. Between 1.7.1 and 1.7.3 there were 169 commits, with bugfix
commits touching core parts of the code.

Things however appear to have stabilized now. The 1.7.3 release is a couple of
weeks old, with no bad bug reports appearing. It has been tested both by the
reporter of Bug#1042535 and by me, and it fixes all known errors with nfdump
1.7.x.

Therefor I'd like to update nfdump in bookworm from 1.7.1 to 1.7.3, same as in
testing.

The alternative would be to use backports to provide a better nfdump version
for bookworm users, but in this case I'm sure that 1.7.3 would be the better
fit for all users. If you reject updating to 1.7.3 I will do this instead.

I'm open to uploading that into -proposed early after the next point release to
give it the maximum possible coverage.

[ Impact ]
Users using nfsen (a popular framework for nfsen) will not get usable profiles.

[ Tests ]
There is an upstream testsuite ran during build, but this did not detect the
nfprofile issue earlier.

[ Risks ]
New upstream version always carries some risk, but the package is low popcon
and most of the times used with nfsen. Which is from the same author who
heartily recommends the latest 1.7.3

[ Checklist ]
  [ ] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog
  [ ] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
  [ ] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable
  [X] the issue is verified as fixed in unstable

[ Changes ]
169 upstream commits.

[ Other info ]
I did not attach the debdiff because it would be too large and only consist
of upstream changes. No changes to debian/ (except dropping a backported fix
already in 12.1) are necessary.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

Sorry about the delay. I would prefer to handle this through backports.

Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Wiltshire                                      jmw@debian.org
Debian Developer                         http://people.debian.org/~jmw

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1

--- End Message ---

Reply to: