Re: Bug#958490: buster-pu: package fuse3/3.4.1-1+deb10u1

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi,

Adam D. Barratt  (2020-04-26):
> I missed (again) that the package generates a udeb. I don't think d-i
> actually uses it, but it should have a KiBi-ack for completeness. (A
> statement that fuse is OK to update in general would also work if
> that's easier.)

Looking at unstable, checking the only vague recollection I had
regarding FUSE: d-i uses ntfs-3g-udeb which depends on: fuse-udeb;
the latter is built by src:fuse and not src:fuse3. And I see no
reverse dependencies for libfuse3-3-udeb (built by src:fuse3).

So you seem to be absolutely correct, hence no objections.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#958490: buster-pu: package fuse3/3.4.1-1+deb10u1

[Adam D. Barratt]

Control: tags -1 + d-i

On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 19:17 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> 
> On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 22:56 +0200, László Böszörményi wrote:
> > There are two RC bugs fixed in fuse3 for Bullseye but not yet for
> > Buster.
> > First one[1] is caused by a leftover in postinst - udev has rules
> > now
> > to handle such things in its 50-udev-default.rules and
> > 99-systemd.rules files.
> > Then it shouldn't explicitly remove fuse.conf [2] as it should be
> > done
> > by dpkg and fuse might still need it.
> > Last but not least there's a small memory leak fix[3] due to
> > free()-ing the stuct pointer of *mo but not its content with
> > destroy_mount_opts().
> > 
> 
> Please go ahead.

I missed (again) that the package generates a udeb. I don't think d-i
actually uses it, but it should have a KiBi-ack for completeness. (A
statement that fuse is OK to update in general would also work if
that's easier.)

Regards,

Adam