From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1598777D4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:12:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9F01D11DA8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:12:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 31D9E11D9D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:12:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0AC404238B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:12:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <7334bf8b-398d-f7dd-ec4c-b936cc7f7799@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:12:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20210721081246.1767859-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
 <20210721081246.1767859-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210721081246.1767859-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.414 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH zfsonlinux 2/2] d/control: add
 transitional zfs-dbg package
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:12:47 -0000

On 21.07.21 10:12, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
> suggesting the new -dbgsym packages without having a strict dependency
> on a specific version of the library packages, like the old no longer
> built zfs-dbg package had.
>=20
> this commit can be reverted after the package has been uploaded once, o=
r
> kept for one release cycle if we might do the -dbgsym migration in
> oldstable as well to avoid the oldstable zfs-dbg package version
> overtaking the transitional one here.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
>=20
> Notes:
>     it only suggests to avoid pulling in new, unneeded libraries via th=
eir -dbgsym
>     packages (e.g., libpam-zfs is not installed by default)
>=20
>     tested with a downgrade to zfs 2.0.4-pve1 including zfs-dbg and the=
n
>     upgrading.
>=20
>  debian/control | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>=20
>

applied, thanks!