On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:43 PM, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: severity 837629 serious > > On 2016-09-14, Rick Thomas wrote: >> On Sep 14, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> wrote: >> >>> Worst case, we have to remove it from stretch again if it really is that >>> bad... >> >> I’ll certainly do the test. If it still doesn’t work on the OpenRD, I >> would not remove it from stretch just yet. Frankly, there just aren’t >> that many OpenRD machines out there, and it works on everything else >> we’ve tested it on — including my non-ESATA SheevaPlug. If we can’t >> fix it for OpenRD, we’ll have to put a warning in NEWS.Debian, but >> IMHO that’s not a reason for denying its benefits to all the other >> machine types. > > No, a warning in NEWS.Debian is not good enough; I meant removing the > targets that "brick" devices. There's no point in shipping something > known to be broken in ways that cause boot failures. That would work, too. > At one point I disabled the OpenRD* targets as it was failing to > build... now we're in a similar situation, only they fail to boot at all > even though they build, which is considerably more dangerous... > > Upgrading the severity to prevent migration to stretch, until we have > a better handle on the situation… OK. I’ll do the test ASAP (probably Friday or Saturday). Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to help get this debugged. I’ll also try it on my OpenRD “Client” machine, incase the problem is specific to that one device. > live well, > vagrant
