[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFS: archivemount (updated package, 3rd try)



On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 01:26:02PM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:48:39AM +0300, Nanakos Chrysostomos wrote:
> > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 08:53:33AM +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
> 
Hi,

> Hi,
> 
> > > The original problem was that fuse-utils wasn't available on kfreebsd
> > The problem was not in kfreebsd but in hurd-i386. 
> 
> I have the slight feeling we're talking about different issue here.
> 
> According to #613119, which you even close in your changelog, it's been
> about kfreebsd, and as far as I can tell there's been no fuse-utils package
> on kfreebsd nor hurd and there is now no fuse package on both of them.
> So this problem isn't solved at all.
> 

Yes, the problem remains on both of them.

> I currently can't say if archivemount is of any use without the rest of
> the fuse tools or not. Looking at the blocking bug #613300 I don't think
> it is but I've not digged that deep yet. If it is indeed useful to have
> on kfreebsd without fuse the dependency has to be adjusted accordingly
> [!kfreebsd-i386 !kfreebsd-amd64]. Otherwise using linux-any seems to be
> a good solution, it's not worth to build a package on architectures where
> it can't be used anyway.

As I can see the solution is using linux-any at the moment.
> 
> 
> > The problem still remains even if Daniel Baumann has adopted and
> > uploaded a new version of the fuse package. Please check [0] again to see
> > that the status of hurd-i386 architecture has a dependency installability.
> > So even with this change archivemount will remain in the current state
> > and useless for all linux users. I prefer the package to be sponsored
> > and used for now only from linux and kfreebsd users and when everything is 
> > ready we will upload the package again including the missing architecture.
> > I included kfreebsd-any in the Architecture Field and re-uploaded the package.
> > Please bare in mind that the package remains in the current state for more
> > than 300 days waiting fuse-utils for the hurd-i386 arch.
> 
> Uh since when is hurd a release architecture? The migration seems to be
> stopped by the RC bug mentioned above.i

You are right.

> 
> 
> > > only a dummy package. This requires some re-evaluation of the situation and
> > > adjustmend of the archivemount depends.
> > 
> > Do we need that for the moment?
> 
> IMO it would make sense to do it now while you're at it, I'd guess that
> Daniel would like to fate out the old fuse-utils package sooner or later
> anyway. So switching now to a versioned depends on fuse >=2.8.5-2 is IMO
> reasonable.
> 

It seems reasonable. Fixed already.

> Beside that:
> There's still lintian barking at the issue with the description. I'm not sure
> if lintian is 100% right there and if the deselect issue is still present but
> double spaces in front of the * should do the trick. IMHO all the (useless)
> dotted empty lines are a bit ugly, I would revert that.
> 
Fixed by simply adding double spaces in front of the *.


> You should also check your changelog, beside closing a bug which
> isn't fixed with arch kfreebsd-any the changelog only states the change from
> any to linux-any. The changes to debian/rules are also missing.

I would like to keep my first change which was only linux-any. What do you mean 
that the changes to debian/rules are missing? I have made the changes you proposed
and added the reverse one in clean. No more lintian errors. Maybe I'm missing
something here, please enlighten me.

I hope this time everything is fine and the package could be sponsored.

Package re-uploaded to mentors.

Cheers,
Chris.	

> 
> Sven
> -- 
> And I don't know much, but I do know this:
> With a golden heart comes a rebel fist.
>      [ Streetlight Manifesto - Here's To Life ]
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 20110528112602.GA2340@marvin">http://lists.debian.org/20110528112602.GA2340@marvin


Reply to: