From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.lichtvoll.de (lichtvoll.de [37.120.160.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE608433BC for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 21:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725399812; cv=none; b=dkHGirhpPjj2ypPQxQwxgfMWcV+sDBT/6T7Mv6IQv8ylajhWK+gXtcLsGRqTkjujMzbudW+j/iMMzcyYHknTj5h1P7NQ4+JpEoCI9xTlc0v0x5Biyk4wKBRYSGyVoeDZP+AY7ke3eZ8lKVJcop7O3O4Jb+ozC1qIuPhlH2N/nxI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725399812; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nKhlaHlVZc5ihigHKfJXfOH3mhJJs7wZ4FKT/Lm95Xs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jFoPOliBIV3y3fIVRKMgNNAk8YtuEq2qJwhaVrDTSu68PSCgAiQr+yQKe0a7lSF2sZW3Y+4VFjXrEGtVk+SrL7Woe7UIUrRKs11MjTFlghu8vmZLyNOpOoy2ia2Z3vchXlvtEnA8rQM+TTbtdIdB8sZeDtNbxDMBEizohjZ/J28= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=37.120.160.25 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lichtvoll.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lichtvoll.de Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D63D61851; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 21:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.lichtvoll.de; auth=pass smtp.auth=martin@lichtvoll.de smtp.mailfrom=martin@lichtvoll.de From: Martin Steigerwald To: Kent Overstreet Cc: Eli Schwartz , "Carl E. Thompson" , linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PSA: Avoid Debian Stable Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 23:37:32 +0200 Message-ID: <2197543.irdbgypaU6@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: References: <36xhap5tafvm4boiy3acu5kxlhkvnp32wp3oknbfbkxbdkeq7r@galecvidi3bn> <4609869.LvFx2qVVIh@lichtvoll.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Kent Overstreet - 07.08.24, 21:55:09 CEST: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 08:58:23PM GMT, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I amended the subject line a bit. I am not sure whether Debian Testing > > or Debian Unstable should also be avoided. >=20 > Unstable as well - unstable is stuck at 1.9.1 and tools is up to 1.9.4, > and it's their policy of switching rust dependencies to distro packages > that broke the build. Experimental meanwhile has 1.9.4. But I do find this quite sad and concerning: https://jonathancarter.org/2024/08/29/orphaning-bcachefs-tools-in-debian/ I do not completely agree with removing it from Debian Unstable aka Sid at= =20 this time, but if upstream development continues like this until too short= =20 before Debian 13 aka Trixie release I can somewhat understand. However it=20 would still be good to have it there for people who use Debian Sid to=20 test. I more and more come to the conclusion myself that BCacheFS might be just=20 a tad bit too much of a moving target for me at the moment. BTRFS can be used just fine in Debian Stable meanwhile. But it took quite a= =20 while to get there. Version of btrfs-progs in Unstable is available as a=20 backport for Debian stable. As far as I understand this cannot be done=20 with BCacheFS tools without putting all the dependencies as is into the=20 package and violating the principle to package a library dependency in one= =20 place and be able to update it for security updates in one place for all=20 the applications and tools depending on it to benefit from them in one go. I hope that at one point it can be like this for BCacheFS as well. And I=20 am fine with this point being several years away. Of course distributions with relaxed policies may not have a problem with=20 packaging all the dependencies within a bcache-tools package. But this is=20 not Debian or Ubuntu=E2=80=A6 or quite a lot of derivatives. I bet this is = also=20 not RHEL or SLES and derivatives of those. =2D-=20 Martin