Re: RFS: qemu-kvm (kvm)
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:15:46PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> >Michael Tokarev ha scritto:
> >>I wrote to debian kvm package maintainer several times, I
> >>submitted a bugreport against kvm long time ago, but never
> >>heard back.
> >>
> >>So now I'm requesting a sponsor to upload my packages into
> >>debian.
> >
> >You are trying to hijack kvm, this is not the way to do it appropriately.
>
> I'm trying to make it to work.
> And to my shame, I don't know how to do that in another way.
> I already support debian users by maintaining the package
> out of debian.
>
> >Anyway your package is completely wrong, you only changed the source name, we
> >can't have the same binary name for two different packages, or two identical
> >packages with a different name.
>
> Well, saying it's completely wrong is not wise. It's not wrong.
>
> You named one reason why do you think it's wrong. Which is its
> name. But this has its reasoning in upstream naming.
>
> As I described in my initial email, initially there were
> development snapshots with naming scheme like kvm-$number.
> It was nothing but development snapshots. First stable
> release was named qemu-kvm-0.10.0, and it will follow this
> naming scheme from now on.
>
> With this, there's no real need to package the development
> snapshots anymore. So kvm-$number _source_ package should
> go, and be replaced with qemu-kvm. Which is exactly what
> my version does.
Except there is no such kvm-$number source package. The source package
for kvm is kvm.
> In short: the source naming scheme follows upstream.
> Note again that as of lenny, there was _no_ single
> stable release of kvm.
>
> As of with naming scheme of kvm _binary_ package, I left
> it the way it was before, to avoid further confusion.
> Which is enough already, due to the fact that kvm is
> a patched version of qemu.
And that is called highjacking.
> kvm is a well-recognized _executable_ name for this
> binary, and the fact that it comes from qemu-kvm source
> is not an issue.
>
> Also I want to have easy upgrade path from kvm-$num
> as in debian now to this qemu-kvm package.
>
> So I'm not quite sure what I missed. Except of the
> "proper way" you mentioned above. Which I still don't
> know -- the way I know is to contact the maintainer
> and/or submit bugreports. I did both, starting about
> half a year ago, but to no avail.
You obviously missed how debian package maintenance works, which is
something you should know as someone who applied to be DD.
Mike
Reply to: