Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1
Hello,
On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org> wrote:
> control: owner -1 !
> control: tags -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi,
>>Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active,
>
>>NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work. Ie, instead
>>of random sponsors, I'd suggest letting him do uploads.
>>
>>As you've helped with this package before, perhaps it might be good to
>>consider co-maintenance?
>
> he declined the offer!
> he is in lowNMU threshold however :)
>
lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =)
And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond
to you about that.
The urgency about the updates and fixes, for the issues that you
yourself raise, are a bit self-inflicted. Maybe I am wrong, but
certainly, there isn't an immediate needs to NMU this package.
Patches relevant for btrfs have been pulled into 4.7rc6 and once 4.7
is updated into experimental or unstable, I can look into updating the
package with some of the changes that you are proposing.
I have just finished a big update to mdadm, and I am at Debconf at the
moment. And I am still maintaining btrfs-progs.
>>I'm afraid the new debian/copyright is a good deal _worse_ than before.
>>
>>For example, you claim there's a file under GPL3, which would make the
>>package undistributable. That file's license would be GPL3+ (not =3),
>>still bad, if not for an exception "... you may include it under the same
>>distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program". Ie, GPL2.
>>
>>Except for some specific projects with tightly controlled copyright notices,
>>Cme produces output indistinguishable from noise. And knowingly providing
>>obviously incorrect copyright data is bad. This Cme-produced output claims
>>every file has a single copyright holder who last touched the file years
>>ago -- easily disproven by "git log" on any file I looked at.
>>
>>And btrfs-progs is a massively cooperative project, with a core gang each of
>>whom holds copyright to most of files (or rather, their companies do -- but
>>those change) and a gaggle of minor contributors (including you and me).
>>
>>Thus, I see two alternatives:
>>* you do a massive work of archeology on every file to find the set of
>> copyright holders. Every file will have a long list.
>>* a blanket statement, listing maybe some major holders but with a stress on
>> "and others".
>>
>>I'd say the important points to convey are "1. many contributors, 2. GPL2".
>
>
> Actually I agree, I try to sum up files for licenses, instead of copyright holders
> e.g.
> all the autoconf* stuff, can go in a single file
> and many copyright headers listed in that section.
>
> Files: config/config.guess
> config/config.sub
> Copyright: 1992-2013, Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://www.fsf.org/>
> License: GPL-3
>
>
> this is wrong, because actually it is GPL-3+ or whatever you want in your source
> "
> # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that
> # program. This Exception is an additional permission under section 7
> # of the GNU General Public License, version 3 ("GPLv3").
> "
>
> so, as all the autoconf files, you might try to put them under the same copyright
> section.
>
> Another thing, you might consider to change
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2007-2012, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>
> License: GPL-2+
>
> Files: debian/watch
> Copyright: 2016, Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
> License: GPL-2
>
>
> into something like
> Files: debian/*
> Copyright: 2007-2012, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>
> 2016, Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
>
> License: GPL-2+
>
>
> (and add xnox maybe :) )
>
> some more "contraction" might be e.g.
> Files: send-test.c
> Copyright: 2013, SUSE <http://www.suse.com/>
> 2012, Alexander Block.
> License: GPL-2
>
> Files: send.h
> Copyright: 2012, STRATO <http://www.strato.com/>
> 2012, Alexander Block.
> License: GPL-2
>
> Files: ulist.c
> ulist.h
> Copyright: 2011, STRATO <http://www.strato.com/>
> License: GPL-2
>
> this can become
>
> Files: send-test.c send.h ulist.c ulist.h
> Copyright: 2013, SUSE <http://www.suse.com/>
> 2011-2012, STRATO <http://www.strato.com/>
> 2012, Alexander Block.
> License: GPL-2
>
>
> and so on, unless they have different licensing, just fix the copyright years
> and try to merge them as much as possible, I know this isn't perfectly clear
> but it is highly maintainable!
>
>
> lets review something more:
> +++ btrfs-progs-4.5.3/debian/btrfs-progs.changelogs 2016-07-01 13:01:45.000000000 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +CHANGES
>
>
> mmm such files should be automatically picked up by debhelper...
> I would say this file is useless :)
>
>
> +++ btrfs-progs-4.5.3/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc 2016-07-01 13:01:45.000000000 +0200
>
>
> YAY!
>
> +++ btrfs-progs-4.5.3/debian/watch 2016-07-01 13:35:15.000000000 +0200
>
> +
>
>
> spurious newline at the end :)
>
> that said, modulo the copyright file, I like the changes :)
>
>
> thanks for working on it!
>
> Gianfranco
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: