similar to: Xen 4.10 for Debian experimental

Knorrie and I just discussed our plans for sid and buster, on the phone. Here's my notes of the discussion. Plan is to upload Knorrie's 4.11 packages to experimental, to make them more public, while we fix the bugs in them. There's a list of Salsa issues and the BTS bugs list. This duplication is not ideal. We agreed that new things should go to the BTS. For now we'll keep

Hi all, Thanks for sending this update Hans. I too am interested in helping out with xen packaging. I am trying to dig into the dpkg-shlibdeps issues - I built it successfully on one box but haven?t been able to reproduce. Either way, I will plan to hang around in IRC to help where I can. Stephen > On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Hans van Kranenburg <hans at knorrie.org> wrote: >

Hi Ian, after our conversation on IRC in #debian-xen today, I updated the packaging to the latest 4.10-stable commit (since there's no 4.10.1 release yet) and smoke-tested the package on a testing/unstable dom0 running a PVHv2 guest. Can you please review and sponsor the upload of a first Xen 4.10 package to Debian unstable? The work which has been done to arrive at this point from the

When installing xen-utils-V in a driver domain domU, it drags in xen-utils-common, which also contains the init script for xenstored and xenconsoled. Installing the package will fail right away, because it exits non-zero after checking whether it's running in a xen dom0 or not: systemd[1]: Starting LSB: Xen daemons... xen[7215]: Starting Xen daemons: (warning). systemd[1]: xen.service:

I have now finished totally rewriting the Xen package in Debian, from scratch. Amazingly as soon as I got a package which was lintian-clean and would install, it worked first time ! I have generated 18 patches to go upstream which I have sent to xen-devel. There are two more, xenstore ABI patches, which need a bit of tidying up. There is still room for improvement but it is now clearly ready

The contents are the wip.testme branch currently on salsa. I combined the wip.initscript and wip.oxenstored into this and added more things today. I think this is pretty gtg and it's smoke tested (in several cases by scping files around instead of doing package build), so it needs a final extra review and test round before putting it in master branch (which I don't want to force push). I

I'm just dumping all I got in here, after initial feedback we can see how to organize todo's around it. tl;dr: * Does not upgrade cleanly from 4.8 packages, so we have to prevent this from entering testing until we fix that. * Live migration is broken, explodes with memory allocation errors. ---- >8 ---- 1. Build packages * I have built salsa/master using pbuilder targeting sid.

On 1/6/19 11:21 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 10:51:13PM +0100, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: >> On 1/5/19 8:04 PM, Colin Watson wrote: >>> I think I'm OK with cherry-picking the relevant patch stack. Presumably >>> this would need to be in new grub-xen-pvh-bin / grub-xen-pvh binary >>> packages, as is usual for separate platform builds?

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("[PATCH 06/13] sysconfig.xencommons.in: Strip and debianize"): > Strip all options that are for stuff we don't ship, which is 1) > xenstored as stubdom and 2) xenbackendd, which seems to be dead code > anyway. [1] > > It seems useful to give the user the option to revert to xenstored > instead of the default oxenstored if they really

To: Debian xen and kernel team list, Ian Jackson Cc: Stefan Bader, maintainer of xen packages in Ubuntu Hi all, Short version: Hi! I'd like to help with the Xen packaging in Debian. Long version: Q: Who are you? How are you related to Debian an the Xen project? A: Hi, I'm Hans van Kranenburg, nickname Knorrie, I live in the Netherlands. I'm a Debian user since 2002, and have been

Hi Ian, team, In the week of Feb 23 (time flies!:), we had a very productive day \o/ working on the stretch security/stable package and some irc discussions in oftc #debian-xen which ended with an open end. Ian, you were a bit surprised that 1) my debian-xen repo started with an import of a 4.8 package 2) it was not a git-pbuilder style repo with upstream source included, and asked me to at

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("[PATCH 09/13] xen init script: move init_dom0 into xenstored start"): > This little xen-init-dom0 program is present in both our 4.8 and 4.11 > packages, so there's no need to keep the if else code. Also, it only > makes sense to run it after starting xenstored, and not all other times > start is called. I think xen-init-dom0 is not in jessie

Initially out there as #965245. I strongly prefer to build ARM64 packages on non-ARM systems. Something about my main build machine having twice the cores and twice the clock speed. As such after many builds I've managed to generate a set of patches which appear to mostly function to get functioning cross-builds of Xen. These are NOT a 100% solution. Some packaging hacks were needed. In

This is awesome! What needs to be done before this can make it to unstable? I’d love to help if there’s anything I can do. Stephen On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:00 PM Hans van Kranenburg <hans at knorrie.org> wrote: > On 10/05/2018 08:04 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I have now finished totally rewriting the Xen package in Debian, from > > scratch. Amazingly as soon as I got a

On 19/10/16 16:54, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Xen in stretch - 4.7 or 4.8 ?"): >> Hi. I was wanting an initial opinion from the Release Team, about the >> Xen packages. Currently they are in bad shape in stretch and I intend >> to fix them ASAP. >> >> The question is whether I should move to Xen 4.7, or Xen 4.8. > > I just asked

I am going to submit a proposal for a Xen BOF at DC18. Here is my first cut at a draft abstract: Title: Xen in Debian BoF Format: workshop with 25 min slot The Xen packages in Debian are in need of some work, including some tidying up, upstreaming of some Makefile patches, and updating to new versions. There is a large outstanding bug list. Also with the demise of Alioth and the

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("Re: git workflow, redux"): > On 08/23/2018 08:07 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I think git-debrebase is going to be easier for all these things than > > the current approach. > > Ok, let's try it! Thanks a lot for doing the above writeup. Great, thanks. (I hope it's OK that I have snipped most of your responses to the discussion,

Summary: I have tried the packaging-only repo and I really don't like it at all. I don't know how anyone copes with this - such hard work! IMO we should switch to git-debrebase. (As an alternative, if you don't trust git-debrebase because it's my own tool, gbp pq would be better, too, even though it's not as good as git-debrebase.) Particularly, now that we have more people

Hi, On 02/22/2018 01:03 AM, John Keates wrote: > > First of all, thanks for the great work! I was wondering about a patch I tried to send in a while ago which enables OVMF. It?s a single line in the rules setup and doesn?t have any build-time or run-time dependencies until you actually change a domU configuration to use OVMF. > > Currently I just rebuild all packages locally and add

Package: xen-utils-4.11 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, We have discovered that the `pygrub` binaries, expected under `/usr/lib/xen-4.11/bin`, are no longer present in the xen-utils-4.11 package. Reviewing the source package reveals that the binary is still present under `tools/pygrub/src/pygrub`, however it is not referenced anywhere obvious in the package build configurations, nor is