Comment 20 for bug 1389811
Revision history for this message
| Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer) wrote | #20 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
Hi Andres,
My full sentence was "test on zesty OR grab the package"
I'm clear on the linking issues and that grabbing this implies way more messy changes - but in this case "grabbing" the change would have been like adding two lines to the service file of tgt.
Anyway of course I'm ok with building something for Xenial to test.
The fix there was about task-max (number, not size) so it wasn't sure if this will fix this issue here as well. That was the reason why we asked for a pre-check. The assumption is that this will fix the issue to be able to spawn more threads (when serving many images) but not the generic memory consumption (yet that might be avoided with swap).
Yet IMHO that is not what -proposed is for (trial and error if it fixes the issues), but instead to ensure we have no regressions - well you know all that anyway. So if there is any chance you can test off a Xenial-ppa that would be much preferred to x-proposed. Only if there would be no way to do a xenial-paa I'd think it is ok to test directly in proposed.
A ppa to test for your case is in [1].
[1]: https:/