biosdevname package in Universe is severely downlevel
Hi. I've been in touch with Mellanox who had filed this bug [1] against the biosdevname[2] package in Universe. Somehow, this package ended up in Universe, with someone named Rudy Gevaert listed as the Original Maintainer and Ubuntu Developers as the package maintainer. This package is SORELY out of date and has not been updated since the 4.0-1 version was introduced in Ubuntu. There have been several updates since then as shown at the Dell host site[3] while the Ubuntu package has languished. The net effect of this is that this package in Ubuntu is broken on pretty much all modern mellanox NICs (CX4, CX5). What can we do to get this updated in Eoan and then backported into Bionic? Cheers Jeff [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/biosdevname/+bug/1535045 [2] https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=biosdevname&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all [3] http://linux.dell.com/files/biosdevname/ -- Jeff Lane Technical Partnership and Server Certification Programmes "Entropy isn't what it used to be." -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: biosdevname package in Universe is severely downlevel
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 20:47, Jeffrey Lane wrote: > > Hi. I've been in touch with Mellanox who had filed this bug [1] > against the biosdevname[2] package in Universe. Somehow, this package > ended up in Universe, with someone named Rudy Gevaert > listed as the Original Maintainer and Ubuntu > Developers as the package > maintainer. > > This package is SORELY out of date and has not been updated since the > 4.0-1 version was introduced in Ubuntu. There have been several > updates since then as shown at the Dell host site[3] while the Ubuntu > package has languished. The net effect of this is that this package > in Ubuntu is broken on pretty much all modern mellanox NICs (CX4, > CX5). > > What can we do to get this updated in Eoan and then backported into Bionic? > Imho it should be removed from the archive, and not be made available at all. Why is biosdevname installed or used at all? Does udev not provide stable names as it is already? And if not can it be fixed there or not? (i know that some of the stable name ids are not available in stock udevd, but i believe the solution there was to start maintaining out of systemd tree udev util to give out persistent names) A demotion of a package from main to universe, does indicate that it's no longer used by default nor recommended for usage by default. Especially something that renames interfaces unlike any other Linux distribution out there. > Cheers > Jeff > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/biosdevname/+bug/1535045 > [2] > https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=biosdevname&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all > [3] http://linux.dell.com/files/biosdevname/ > -- > Jeff Lane > Technical Partnership and Server Certification Programmes > > "Entropy isn't what it used to be." > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Regards, Dimitri. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: biosdevname package in Universe is severely downlevel
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 09:17:54PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Imho it should be removed from the archive, and not be made available at all. As long as we are shipping it though, isn't it reasonable to allow volunteers to keep it up to date? Same for stable releases where it did ship - our hardware enablement SRU policy applies to it, surely? I don't think it is appropriate to retroactively pull support for something that we already shipped. I also don't agree with marking the bug Won't Fix. If the package is to be removed, then we should get it removed, but until then, and for previous stable releases still in support, bugs against them are valid. Trusty and ESM would be a separate matter. My understanding is that regular SRUs stop when ESM begins, which if accurate would mean no change against user expectations from when those releases first shipped. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
