similar to: Entirely new Xen packaging

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

xen source: lintian output: 'license-problem-gfdl-invariants stubdom/grub.patches/00cvs invariant part is: with no invariant sections, with the front-cover texts being a gnu manual, and with the back-cover texts as in (a) below', automatically rejected package. xen source: If you have a good reason, you may override this lintian tag. xen-utils-4.11: lintian output:

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.

Accepted: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:38:52 +0100 Source: xen Binary: xenstore-utils xen-utils-common xen-hypervisor-common xen-doc xen-utils-4.11 xen-hypervisor-4.11-amd64 xen-system-amd64 xen-hypervisor-4.11-arm64 xen-system-arm64 xen-hypervisor-4.11-armhf xen-system-armhf libxen-dev libxenmisc4.11 libxencall1 libxendevicemodel1

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 ("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,

Package: src:xen Version: 4.11.1-1 Currently, these are rdepends: -$ apt-cache rdepends libxenmisc4.11 libxenmisc4.11 Reverse Depends: libxen-dev xen-utils-4.11 collectd qemu-system-x86 libvirt-daemon collectd-core It's on the wishlist to start doing buster-backports for Xen. If the user has a cluster of servers and can make use of live migrate, then this allows the user to

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("Re: Plans for buster"): > This can be done from tag debian/4.11.1_pre+1.733450b39b-1_exp1 (which > is right now the same as the master branch). Thanks for doing all this work. I have just sent it to experimental. I did some reviewing and diffing. I have some comments, or, at least, things I noticed. None of them were IMO blockers for experimental.

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

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

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

Gooooooood morning guys,? ? EVERYBODY READY... !??? :who hoo.. i am..? :-) ? Finaly the first 4.11 builds are getting in shape and pff,?a hard cookie this one.. but with some help and determination... deb are created now.. ? If everything goes as aspected now, you might see TODAY the 4.11 packages.? (fingers crossed) ... Now running lintian samba_4.11.0+dfsg-0.1_amd64.changes ... And i have

Hi, This email is mainly addressed at Waldi (Bastian Blank). I'm resending it since the previous one is waiting for approval due to its size being bigger than 40k (I compressed the .diff this time, so it should be ok). I have worked on enhancing the current packaging of Xen 4.1.1 over the last weeks. The main goal was to package the OCaml libraries of Xen as separated binary packages, and

Hi! I was running lintian on our package... Among the copious errors and warnings there are: W: xen-utils: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/xm.1.gz 668: warning: can't find numbered character 160 Should we try to fix this, perhaps? E: xen-hypervisor-pae: unstripped-binary-or-object ./boot/xen_pae-syms-3.0.1 E: xen-hypervisor: unstripped-binary-or-object ./boot/xen-syms-3.0.1

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("Re: Plans for buster"): > On 08/23/2018 07:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > IDK if this > > should have its own deb. Putting it in the libxenstore one is > > probably tolerable. > > Yes, shipping a 4.x specific file in libxenstore3.0 (which happens now) > is not right. But, if the library ABI is independent from the 4.x >

Moritz Muehlenhoff writes ("Re: Xen package security updates for jessie 4.4, XSA-213, XSA-214"): > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:59:18PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Should I put jessie-security in the debian/changelog and dgit push it > > (ie, from many people's pov, dput it) ? > > Yes, the distribution line should be jessie-security, but please send > a

Moritz Muehlenhoff writes ("Re: Xen package security updates for jessie 4.4, XSA-213, XSA-214"): > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 05:06:07PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I have fixed these in stretch but the jessie package remains unfixed. > > I think I may be able to find some backports somewhere. Would that be > > useful ? Is anyone else working on this ? > >

FYI I will have an upload ready RSN. Where should I send it ? Matthew Vernon has offered to test my amd64 binaries. I will test the i386 packages myself. Ian.

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

Moritz Muehlenhoff writes ("Re: Xen package security updates for jessie 4.4, XSA-213, XSA-214"): > Yes, the distribution line should be jessie-security, but please send > a debdiff to team at security.debian.org for a quick review before > uploading (I have no idea whether dgit supports security-master). Here is the proposed debdiff (actually, a git diff) for xen in jessie. My