** Changed in: systemd (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843755
Title:
[FFe] Please accept systemd 242 to Eoan
To manage
Since the time before Eoan Beta is too short I reverted to ship 242, it
is now in -proposed.
** Summary changed:
- [FFe] Please accept systemd 243 to Eoan
+ [FFe] Please accept systemd 242 to Eoan
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
as commented in person, I'm approving the v242 FFe, but if the target is
v243 it is better to not upload 242 to the archive and wait for 243
instead.
** Changed in: systemd (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
@vorlon Testing 243 goes better than expected, I may able to prepare it
for FFe instead of 242 so Eoan would be in sync with Fedora.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843755
Title:
** Tags added: id-5d6fb9fb2ac215651795ec78
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843755
Title:
[FFe] Please accept systemd 242 to Eoan
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
@vorlon: I agree that upgrading to v242 comes with risks, but the risk
fairly hard to assess exactly.
One measure can be the number of upstream stable backports and this is
as follows:
rbalint@yogi:~/projects/deb/systemd.git$ git describe
github-stable/v242-stable
v242-108-gf875dced33
@vorlon: I got reports against v243 via IRC, too, but those were
expected since autopkgtests were also failing in releated areas.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843755
Title:
[FFe]
@vorlon: You can check in the Bileto ticket that the autopkgtests for
242 are all green (except for a single ostree one).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843755
Title:
[FFe] Please
@vorlon: Those regressions are found in 243 RC1, I'm now preparing 243
final which has new regressions compared to 243 RC1. Many regressions
introduced in 243 were reported to upstream and got fixed in 243 final,
but not all of them.
There were two regression identified in 242 (regressing
That bug specifically calls out that 243 was removed because it
introduced regressions upstream.
It is left unclear whether these regressions applied to 242.
Were all of the regressions in 243 identified by way of autopkgtests?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
@vorlon: If you don's see that convincing I don't know what you are looking
for. 242 now is as well tested as 241 when it entered Eoan and it is still not
too late in the cycle to fix/revert if something breaks.
Imo the most important aspect is preparing for 20.04 LTS and 242 in Eoan serves
@vorlon: Please see the discussion in LP: #1841790.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843755
Title:
[FFe] Please accept systemd 242 to Eoan
To manage notifications about this bug go
cut'n'pasting the changelog (especially with bad word wrapping) does not
constitute 'analysis' and is not particularly consumable by the release
team.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
I added in the description, the changelog to know what has been introduced in
this release, something I would personally appreciate to have in my dailyjob is:
* systemd.volatile=overlay
* systemd-networkd-wait-online gained a new setting --any for waiting
* networkctl list/status/lldp now accept
I do not think this FFe request provides sufficient rationale for why we
would want to make an exception. (Neither Debian testing having a newer
version, nor "carrying fewer patches", are a compelling reason.)
It also does not include any in-depth analysis of the risks, beyond
saying that 241 is
15 matches
Mail list logo
