Comment 6 for bug 1670481
Revision history for this message
| bugproxy (bugproxy) wrote Comment bridged from LTC Bugzilla | #6 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
a60fb26
(Get the code!)
------- Comment From <email address hidden> 2017-03-07 14:44 EDT-------
Thanks Christian, I agree that stability is important on Xenial/Yaketty.
Here is my perspective as a user. We are running an OpenStack CI that uses Cirros image (no systemd/udev and consistent device naming). We did spend time to debug the problem caused by the reverse order and to come up with a fix. If the qemu behavior remains, more people would need to put effort into writing their own fixes as long as Xenial/Yakkety is not EOL. And every workaround would need to be supported by them.
Either way, you either break current workarounds, or force more workarounds down the line. As a user, I would like to have less workarounds. And I believe that the change in device order is a bug, even though it is advised not to rely on the device order. I understand that this might not be a strong case for backporting on Ubuntu, but more of a case for having a backport in Qemu itself, which is not likely to happen.
I am unable to confirm the Qemu build works on Zesty for original problem we have, it would take time to create an OpenStack CI Zesty environment from scratch. I might try to install it on Xenial, but I suspect it would not like that. I'd need to compile it myself to test it.