[BPO] nfs-utils/1:2.6.1-2ubuntu4 from kinetic

[Nathan A. Ferch]

[Impact]

 * nfs-common has a bug which breaks uid mapping with Kerberos and NFS (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libnfsidmap/+bug/1812280)
 * nfs-common 1.3.4 in focal is very old (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1878601)

[Scope]

 * Will backport 1:2.6.1-2ubuntu4 in kinetic to focal
 * Will backport 1:2.6.1-2ubuntu4 in kinetic to bionic if possible

[Other Info]

 * Have built and tested the package manually in focal without any issues so far.

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

Hello Nathan,

we had a couple of meetings in the Backports and we have some concerns about this proposed update:

1) you haven't provided any debdiffs, nor it's clear who is going to prepare the backports and do the future maintenance, as you don't seem to be an active Ubuntu contributor
2) you'd like to do the bpo from kinetic, but doing so will break updates as jammy is not covered. You'll need to either include a jammy bpo, or ignore kinetic and do the bpo from jammy, unless there are relevant changes later on.
3) I'm going to subscribe the ubuntu server team and I noticed that Andreas Hasenack subscribed himself already, as before approving such package I'd totally like to have their input
4) the bug #1812280 you mentioned is in a different source package, but either way, if it's relevant then it should be handled via SRU and not necessarily be considered while evaluating the benefits of backporting nfs-utils
5) I think I'd like to have the tests a little better defined than "tested the package manually in focal without any issues so far"

Thank you for your interest!

[Andreas Hasenack (ahasenack)]

I'm mostly watching this. But I can already warn you guys that the biggest issue is the change in the configuration: the newer version uses /etc/nfs.conf. See "NFS server" in the jammy release notes: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/jammy-jellyfish-release-notes/24668

[Mattia Rizzolo (mapreri)]

Right, well.. backports are not done to be compatible with the base distribution, of course. They have to be manually installed by the system administrators knowing what they are doing exactly for this reason. But huge incompatibilities for sure make for a "negative point".

[Nathan A. Ferch (nferch)]

Hi Mattia,

Thanks for the feedback and questions.

Some clarification:

1) I didn't provide any debdiffs because I didn't need to modify the package. I'm happy to help with the maintenance but it would be probably be better served with those with more cycles and experience, if they deem it worth the effort.

2) Didn't include jammy since I didn't try and reproduce and it seemed to be fixed with the version currently in jammy, 1:2.6.1-1ubuntu1. If someone can verify that it's fixed with 1:2.6.1-1ubuntu1 then I don't see any reason why that couldn't be backported instead.

3) Agreed, defer as to whether the effort is worth the benefit. Given the lack of anyone else making noise being affected for how old the package is, I suspect it is not.

4) Unaware of what machinations need to happen when a bug is fixed in a replaced package. My quick and dirty backport worked for me but I'm unaware of the other implications, my assumptions were that the standard "Depends" semantics would work, but I think what you're saying is that the bug should have been filed against the other package?

5) Defer to the package maintainers and those more familiar with the use-cases and expectations are. My assumption was that much of this is esoteric and poorly documented enough to require some degree of manual care anyway, but what I'm hearing is that the risk of incompatibilities from dropping in such a major bump outweighs the benefit of avoiding requiring a manual rebuild.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for nfs-utils (Ubuntu Bionic) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for nfs-utils (Ubuntu Focal) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]