Re: Bug#1031622: d-i regression in weekly builds: FEATURE_C12 unsupported by the installed e2fsck

Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]> Sun, 19 Feb 2023 16:20:09 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.cd
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Simon McVittie <[email protected]> (2023-02-19):
> Are d-i alphas and weekly builds built differently? Is it perhaps the
> case that alphas are built from testing udebs, while weeklies are built
> from unstable udebs?

Let's quote <https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/index.en>:
 - Or install the current weekly snapshot of Debian testing which uses
   the same version of the installer as the last release:
   > Current weekly snapshots
 - If you prefer to use the latest and greatest, either to help us test
   a future release of the installer or because of hardware problems or
   other issues, try one of these daily built images which contain the
   latest available version of installer components.
   > Current daily snapshots

We're in the first case:
  https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/

> I don't know how to list the versions of the installed udebs and
> mke2fs doesn't seem to have a --version option

You can check /var/lib/dpkg/status (or look at the MANIFEST.udebs file
in the d-i tree if you know where udebs came from).

Here, e2fsprogs-udeb is at 1.47.0-1, which explains the problem. But the
installer is clearly not “the same versions of the installer as the last
release” since it features linux 6.1.8-1…

Cc-ing debian-cd@ for input; quoting the rest of your reply in full.

> I had expected that weekly builds are expected to be able to install
> testing. If that expectation is correct, then that means weekly builds
> need to be built from udebs that will create a filesystem that is
> considered acceptable by testing user-space (and bootloaders and kernels,
> but this bug report is about user-space).
> 
> > Closing this bug report as it's not a practical issue with the version
> > just released, and since it shouldn't be an issue with later releases
> > given grub2 in testing should cope just fine.
> 
> Note that my bug report is not about whether grub2 in testing copes
> with the filesystem created by d-i: when I installed from the 2023-02-09
> weekly build, grub successfully loaded my kernel and initramfs, so that
> part at least seems fine. The issue I was having is that the *initramfs*
> from the testing system I installed did not cope.
> 
> If I'm right about weeklies being built from unstable udebs, then I
> think this will continue to be a problem *for weekly builds* until either:
> a version of e2fsprogs that can fsck filesystems with metadata_csum_seed
> and orphan_file migrates to testing; or e2fsprogs stops enabling those
> features on at least the filesystems created in d-i (optionally all new
> filesystems, but this particular bug report is about d-i only).


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois ([email protected])            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)