Fixing udev-udeb vs. net.ifnames for Stretch Alpha 1

[Martin Pitt]

Hey Cyril,

first of all, I'm terribly sorry for the bad timing and the
miscommunication. I only really realized the installer impact of that
the day before yesterday when Adam pointed this out to me.

Cyril Brulebois [2015-07-15 18:03 +0200]:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So Michael just approached me regarding having this merged before
> Stretch Alpha 1: (A)
> | commit 7b5eb265bbb2b783cbf7563b57db2f5a9b5cc3cf
> | Author: Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com>
> | Date:   Sat Jul 11 11:56:42 2015 +0200
> | 
> |     Fix udeb an initramfs for net.ifnames
> |     
> |      - debian/udev-udeb.install: Install new bits for net.ifnames.
> |      - debian/extra/initramfs-tools/hooks/udev: Do the same for initramfs-tools.
> |     
> |     LP: #1473542
> 
> which I guess could be coupled together with: (B)
> | commit b8fdd6f8f16c1bbfdf75f90e2710b2ac0dabae1b
> | Author: Martin Pitt <martin.pitt at ubuntu.com>
> | Date:   Mon Jul 13 09:02:27 2015 +0200
> | 
> |     Also put old 70-persistent-net.rules into initramfs
> |     
> |     The previous commit added the new net.ifnames machinery to initramfs, to get
> |     consistent names in initramfs and the real system. However, we also need to
> |     copy the legacy 70-persistent-net.rules to avoid getting different names in
> |     both places. Thanks Adam Conrad!

*If* you want to take the initramfs-tools/hooks/udev change into the
t-p-u upload, then tb8fdd is imperative to be included.

However, we never had persistant if names in the initramfs, so this is
a new feature; we've had this discrepancy between names in initramfs
and "real" system for many years, so I don't think it's urgent to
cherry-pick this. IOW: the initramfs part isn't a regression fix.

> Bottom line(s):
> ---------------
> I'll be testing 221-1 to make sure I reproduce the issue with a full
> install, then 221-1 + two patches to make sure it goes away. If that
> works fine, it might be a good idea to tpu 221-1+deb9u1 so that we
> get d-i Stretch Alpha 1 unstuck ASAP, while not having to figure out
> what new joy the 222 release would bring.
> 
> 
> Would that look like a sane way forward to both systemd and release
> teams?

I would recommend to only put the debian/udev-udeb.install parts of
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?id=7b5eb265bbb2
into the t-p-u upload. Or both of the above patches. Either is safe
against 221-1, the former is less intrusive.

I need to run for today, but I can prepare an upload tomorrow early
morning if you want to; if you would like to do that yourself, please
go ahead with a direct NMU.

Thanks!

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-systemd-maintainers/attachments/20150715/67c4c808/attachment-0002.sig>