Hi all, Sorry for top posting. I spoke with Rob, the author of xcp-networkd, who thinks that he's fixed this bug in a later upstream release. We'll take a look at the repo tomorrow and see if we can find the commit that fixes this issue.
Mike On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: > On 02/11/2013 04:22 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Having it marked RC may allow a patch into wheezy. > > Marking it RC is only delaying the release, that's it. I have already > fixed multiple bugs which were not marked as RC, and the release team > accepted the changes. Even after Wheezy is released, it is possible to > fix problems in the stable distribution. > > > Maybe even a small patch: > > A small patch is what we should all aim at. I'm sure the problem isn't > so complicated, and that we can fix it. > > Of course, it would help if Mike and Jon were a bit more cooperative and > were trying to fix the issue, but it seems they are quite busy these > days (or maybe in holidays?). > > > > > - updating the README > > > > - changing pif-reconfigure-ip to give an error if the user tries a > > netmask that is not supported, e.g. > > > > "XCP only works on a Class C subnet with a netmask 255.255.255.0. Your > > changes have not been applied. > > See bug 695221 or the README file." > > Yeah, I think that is indeed a good idea to write this! > > > These things would be small fixes but would make the user's first > > experience of XCP less frustrating > > > > The last thing you want is for people to get frustrated and start > > thinking that they should try the Ubuntu version or the ISO installer: > > http://www.xen.org/download/xcp/index_1.6.0.html#install > > Well, yes, I would like to have more Debian users, and that people use > less XCP from the ISO installer (eg: CentOS based). However, the Ubuntu > package of XCP is synced from Debian, so these are the exact same > package (with only a possible delay in having the Ubuntu package). > Nobody in Ubuntu works on the XCP packaging, the work is only been done > by myself in Debian. > > >> Ultimately, this is the job of the maintainer of a given package to > >> decide the seriousness of a bug. To me, setting it to either normal or > >> important is exactly the same (eg: it is on my radar, and I really want > >> to have it fix), and discussing the seriousness doesn't help. Discussing > >> ways to fix it does. > > > > It's not quite the same, because the release team wouldn't accept a > > patch/unblock request for a normal issue > > This statement is completely wrong. The criteria for the release team to > accept changes is not the severity of a bug only. If we find a way to > fix this problem, I'm quite sure that the release team will accept the > patch, regardless of the severity set in the BTS. > > > I'm hoping that the fix for this might be quite trivial and therefore > > acceptable to the release team. > > Yeah, that's more in line! If the fix is small, and even trivial, and > easy to review for them (which is quite likely to be the case, > considering that just fixing the db with an editor fixed it for you), > then they will accept it. > > I'm also quite sure that they would accept any documentation change at > this point of the release. > > Cheers, > > Thomas >