Re: Debian derivatives census: welcome SprezzOS
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:14 PM, nick black wrote:
> [blink] that would certainly have saved me some time. It was my
> understanding that the CDDL-licensed ZFS couldn't be placed into Debain, but
> clearly I was mistaken.
As you noticed it is only available on kFreeBSD. I guess patches to
make it use zfs-fuse on Linux would be welcomed.
http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=zfs
> I hadn't known that, Paul. Thanks. If nothing else, I want to develop and
> maintain the techniques necessary to build such installation media up.
Folks maintaining the Debian ISO image infrastructure are on the
debian-cd list and the debian-live list for the live images.
> There's also a flash-updating udeb I'm including for use with LSI SAS2008
> controllers; perhaps I ought make a mainline deb.
That sounds useful.
> I would in this case rather file the bug against GCC, actually.
If you do that, upstream would be the best place to file it I think.
> I would be very interested in doing so. I've created the username nickblack
> on the mentors server. If you'd be interested in mentoring me, please
> respond privately.
In general I'd prefer to do that publically so others can benefit too.
The basic procedure for reintroducing oprofile would be:
Read the intro:
http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
File an Intent To Package (ITP) bug:
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#l1
Get the old package from snapshot.d.o, you probably want 0.9.6-1.4 and
to merge 0.9.6-2+armhf:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/oprofile/
Update the packaging to fix the issues mentioned in the removal bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/653168
http://packages.qa.debian.org/o/oprofile.html
Upload the package to mentors.d.n
Request an upload on the debian-mentors list or by filing a bug
against the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package. I'm personally not
an oprofile user so I wouldn't be doing that upload.
http://mentors.debian.net/sponsors
Once you find a sponsor and the package reaches the archive, unarchive
and reopen all the bugs that were closed when the package was removed.
The ones that were closed in versions ending in +rm are the ones that
you should check to see if they still apply and then reopen them:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;src=oprofile
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
> It's been our experience that oprofile storing results in a tmpfs or SSD
> introduces such low overhead that development environments ought just always
> have it running in a sensible default configuration, with variously merged
> outputs only a command away. If ident-level oprofiling data was as easily
> available as top, we feel, programmers would be much better informed.
>
> It is possible that linux's "perf" tool is better adapted to this task.
Thanks for the info.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: