On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 05:53:23PM +0200, Valentin Vidic wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 07:55:56PM -0700, tony mancill wrote: > > Thank you for the bug report. My initial instinct is to use the same > > unit file and service dependencies as upstream. Looking at the history > > of Debian's patch [2] of the unit file, and specifically this commit > > [3], it appears that the change was made to resolve an issue. > > > > The patch to the systemd unit file predates my involvement with this > > package, so Valentin may be able to provide more context. Perhaps > > there was a bug in fcoe-utils that necessitated the change at that time, > > but we can now revert to the unit file patch? > > > > Valentin, do you have any insight on this? Without a link to the > > original bug, I'm unsure what regression reverting to the upstream unit > > file dependencies might cause. > > Hi, as the comment on commit 1519b5cd suggests, I think there was some > race condition with getting FCoE working reliably on boot. It is > possible this is not required and can be reverted, but I don't have > access to the hardware anymore to test it. > > Another option would be to move both services to start before the > network, if the testing shows that this is still required.
I also don't have access to the hardware to test it. My assumption is that upstream would see bug reports if the race condition still exists, but that's merely conjecture on my part. Do you have any concerns with an upload to unstable (or experimental) to revert the unit file change? Thank you, tony
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
