On 5/24/19 4:33 PM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Hi Arnaud - sorry I missed your messages until now.
No problem :) > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 09:03:41AM +0700, Arnaud Rebillout wrote: >> As I mentioned above, there's a discussion with a work in progress to >> fix that upstream: https://github.com/docker/libnetwork/pull/2339 >> >> I don't think it will be ready in time for buster though. So I see two >> solutions going forward: >> >> - 1 Jonathan lower the severity of the bug so that it's not RC. > > I'd rather not do that, because I think RC is the right classification; > *but* I don't feel necessarily (given the circumstances) that docker.io > should be removed from Buster, so can I instead suggest we request that > this bug is ignored for Buster? I think we need to ask the release team > to do that (and tag accordingly) but I'll double-check the procedure. > >> - 2 I import the patch from github, even though it's work in progress. I >> will follow up and update the patch as soon as upstream release a proper >> fix, and it will be included in a point release of buster. > >> If I don't get any feedback from you Jonathan in the following days, >> I'll go for solution number 2 then. > > I bow to your judgement as maintainer as to whether the partial fix is > worth applying on its own. Will the patch in #2339 address the specific > issue of what happens on package install? The thing is, I don't know for sure. After reading all the conversation, it seems that it does fix the particular bug reported here. But upstream also points out that it's just a partial solution, that's why the patch is sitting there without anyone really merging it. It's not sure if an improved version of the patch will appear. The bug has been opened for a long time already (1.5 years), and upstream doesn't seem to care much. Myself, I don't have a test setup to reproduce the bug and then validate that the patch fixes it. And these days I can't afford the time to work on that. That's why I'm also reluctant to blindly import this patch (even though after looking at the diff itself, it looks rather trivial). Hence I think it would be safer to go for option 1 and request that the bug is ignored? Unless the reporter of the bug has the time and means to actually test the patch in #2339? For sure I will follow up on that during Buster lifecycle, hopefully upstream will fix this for real, and in any case I'll find the time at some point to properly test this patch. Regards, Arnaud
