>>>>> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> writes:
the answer to your "how long" is that packages
>> should also work with the kernel from the previous and the kernel
>> from the next Debian release.
Theodore> This isn't a problem with the kernel.
I don't think that was Adrian's point.
I think Adrian was making an analogy and suggesting that filesystems
made by bookworm should be usable by bullseye and by the release after
bookworm--usable by the bootloaders etc.
Or at least that would be a reasonable thing to do based on stability
guarantees we've made in other cases.
I.E. I think your question of "for how long" has a very simple answer
based on our history: if we care about stability in this instance it's
for +/-1 Debian release.
I'm struggling trying to figure out whether we should commit to that
stability.
I do find this change after the transition freeze to be kind of late. I
understand it's not a traditional transition.
But for example you're not leaving a lot of time for asking programs
like vmdb2 or fai-diskimage to adjust how they call fsck.
If you made this change a few months ago, it would be reasonable to file
bugs against those packages and ask them to adjust how they call
mkfs.ext4.
I want to stress that I'm not affiliated with the release team; my
opinion here has no official weight.
But I would ask you to consider that it is kind of late to make a
change in the required filesystem features for bookworm and suggest a
more orderly process would be to make the change in the next release and
give packages that need to build vm images a chance to adjust.
I also think it would be reasonable for the project to decide we care
about this stability, and that we want bullseye grub to work with a
filesystem made on sid.
I understand you do not support that stability decision.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
