Bug 561522 – sys-apps/util-linux-2.26.2 stable request

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Mike Gilbert 2015-09-26 02:19:55 UTC]

This is needed for systemd. Any reason not to?

[Comment 1 SpanKY 2015-09-26 07:10:06 UTC]

i don't recall any reason not to

[Comment 2 Agostino Sarubbo 2015-09-26 10:18:50 UTC]

amd64 stable

[Comment 3 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2015-09-27 05:25:56 UTC]

Stable for HPPA PPC64.

[Comment 4 Agostino Sarubbo 2015-09-30 13:43:28 UTC]

x86 stable

[Comment 5 Mikle Kolyada (RETIRED) 2015-10-02 11:00:06 UTC]

ia64 stable

[Comment 6 Mikle Kolyada (RETIRED) 2015-10-10 14:55:05 UTC]

sparc stable

[Comment 7 Markus Meier 2015-10-17 11:06:02 UTC]

arm stable

[Comment 8 Agostino Sarubbo 2015-10-30 10:17:25 UTC]

ppc stable

[Comment 9 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2015-11-01 15:09:16 UTC]

Alpha has a new test failure, see bug 564628.

[Comment 10 SpanKY 2015-11-03 21:33:09 UTC]

(In reply to Tobias Klausmann from comment #9)

seems like 2.25 also fails in this way which means it's not a regression and should not be considered a blocker for stabilization

[Comment 11 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2015-11-04 09:20:23 UTC]

(In reply to SpanKY from comment #10)
> (In reply to Tobias Klausmann from comment #9)
> 
> seems like 2.25 also fails in this way which means it's not a regression and
> should not be considered a blocker for stabilization

I'm actually considering masking all failing versions and possible resurrecting an old version just for alpha. It's not quite clear at the moment of the test failure correlates with an inability to edit disklabels during installation. If that is the case, we have installation media that are useless: for booting reasons (SRM can only read from disklabel slices), user have to be able to set up BSD disklabels when installing an alpha.

I will try and figure this out by the weekend and then update this bug accordingly.

[Comment 12 SpanKY 2015-11-04 18:07:08 UTC]

(In reply to Tobias Klausmann from comment #11)

does the boot media not actually work, or are you extrapolating from the test failure ?

[Comment 13 SpanKY 2015-11-05 04:14:43 UTC]

(In reply to Tobias Klausmann from comment #11)

i think you should stabilize this since it's clearly not a regression and 2.26.2 does not negatively impact the status quo.  independently, you can investigate the test failure via bug 564628.

[Comment 14 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2015-11-05 09:50:56 UTC]

(In reply to SpanKY from comment #12)
> (In reply to Tobias Klausmann from comment #11)
> 
> does the boot media not actually work, or are you extrapolating from the
> test failure ?

We've had users report that they are unable to create disklabels with later/latest versions of the utility, mattst88 asked upstream and there was some back and forth on how the *UI* changed. My plan is to do a test/mock install on the weekend to see if the new instructions actually work.

If so, I'll make sure we update our docs.

Either way, the test failure needs to be reported upstream. I'll see to that, too, unless someone already has done so.

[Comment 15 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2015-11-05 09:51:20 UTC]

(In reply to SpanKY from comment #13)
> (In reply to Tobias Klausmann from comment #11)
> 
> i think you should stabilize this since it's clearly not a regression and
> 2.26.2 does not negatively impact the status quo.  independently, you can
> investigate the test failure via bug 564628.

Will do.

[Comment 16 Tobias Klausmann (RETIRED) 2015-11-05 10:01:27 UTC]

2.26.2 is now stable on alpha.