[Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#702428: Bug#702428: raising to serious

[Thomas Goirand]

Hi Daniel,

On 03/16/2013 05:21 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> My impression of this bug is that HVM networking is not possible with
> XCP, or at least it is not possible without some undocumented
> configuration setting or missing dependency package

Did you have a look at the XenServer documentation on the citrix
website? It applies to XCP as well, it is easy to find, and also quite huge.

> If there is a workaround from upstream, I would propose lowering the
> severity to important again.

Please do not set the severity to "serious" for this bug again. The
severity "serious" is for Debian policy violation. Here's the full
definition of serious bugs, as per reportbug:

"is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, the problem is a
violation of a 'must' or 'required' directive); may or may not affect
the usability of the package. Note that non-severe policy violations may
be 'normal,' 'minor,' or 'wishlist' bugs. (Package maintainers may also
designate other bugs as 'serious' and thus release-critical; however,
end users should not do so.). For the canonical list of issues worthing
a serious severity you can refer to this webpage:
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/rc_policy.txt."

This isn't what this bug is about. It matches more "important:

"a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without
rendering it completely unusable to everyone."

XCP is usable without HVM, I did test that...

Also, ultimately, it is up to the maintainer to decide the severity of a
bug, so if I changed it once, please respect my choice. There is no need
to play BTS ping-pong. :)

> I am happy to test any proposed work around and provide quick feedback.

I would suggest that you ask your questions in the xen-api mailing list
upstream: xen-api at lists.xensource.com

> The log output in my previous post suggests that the script has the
> wrong interface name (should be `vif10.0' instead of `tap10.0' - that
> suggests that it is completely unable to work the way it is, but also
> may be easy to fix.
>
> However, if it is completely broken, and if a new upstream release or
> patch is available, I think there is significant value in having that
> backported to wheezy.

As much as I know, there's no upstream new version coming anytime soon.
They are currently working so that they can have a unique code base for
the CentOS and the Debian packages, until that is done, I don't think it
is reasonable to expect a newer version. You can also ask for that in
the upstream mailing list.

Cheers,

Thomas