Comment 2 for bug 1686679

Hi Hua Zhang,
you asked me to look for a nomination for Xenial.
I quickly looked and while I ack on Xenial nomination I have a few extra requests.

1. the impact isn't clear are we talking seconds, minutes, hours - if you could add a number from your tests that would be great

2. the testcase is rather unclear, imagine an SRU Team member that actually wants to do this - that is a lot of work. I'm sure you have a tst script that sets up those maps and such - please share and adapt here accordingly.

3. regression potential is clearly not "no regression potential" there could be misdetections not getting root ready, there could be issues due to building the maps late. This is not about writing the nicest words to say "no regression" it is about showing you really thought through the regressions you expect might happen in case things go wrong or thre are oversights in backporting.

4. what releases to fix
$ git tag --contains 67e7d613a4b09eeffc57ab44a7acb52027d897b2
release_5_1_2
$ rmadison autofs5
[...]
 autofs5 | 5.1.1-1ubuntu3 | xenial | all
 autofs5 | 5.1.1-1ubuntu3 | yakkety | all
 autofs5 | 5.1.2-1ubuntu1 | zesty | all
 autofs5 | 5.1.2-1ubuntu1 | artful | all
So IMHO Yakkety needs the fix as well, otherwise it will be a regression on upgrade.

5. the debdiff does not mention this bug number to let it be tracked by LP when things move into proposed and updates, please add them

6. the patch in the debdiff had no dep3 header, but IMHO all pacthes should have one http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/
At least add bug, Author (you) and Forwarded with a pointer to the upstream patch

I'll try to nominate X&Y but let you do the further work to adapt SRU template. Since I can't upload autofs you eventually need a core-dev anyway, but I hope my quick check help to reduce the round trips you need.