Bug#708132: bcache-tools ITP
Indeed it's included in the Fedora package!
Rolf
> Op 18 sep. 2014 om 01:21 heeft "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> If you're interested in the bcache-status[1] tool, I'd be happy to work with
> you to get (and keep) it in Debian. I /think/ it's in the Fedora package.
>
> (afaict the script is not in any of those git trees...)
>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:55:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
>> I have some progress to report. I also think that this is ready to
>> upload, though we should sort out a couple of things first.
>>
>> I've added the bcache list (this is the Debian packaging bug) since
>> there is a question about some of these commits that seem to be relevant
>> to upstream but aren't in the upstream branch.
>>
>> I've done some (functional only) testing of bcache itself with a
>> colleague, and we haven't seen any major issues.
>>
>> I think the packaging is good to go, though I've added a removal of one
>> extraneous file and updated debian/copyright. This is in
>> github.com/basak/bcache-tools. I haven't submitted any pull requests to
>> avoid confusion (see below).
>>
>> A colleague (James Page) is a DD and is prepared to upload, provided
>> that we all agree on who will maintain the package first. I'm happy to
>> step up. Who else does?
>>
>> I found following all the various git trees confusing, and think we
>> should resolve this soon after upload. There are three git trees I'm
>> aware of, and I've added a fourth:
>>
>> 1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git
>> 2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git
>> 3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git
>> 4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git
>
> I had thought that #2 was the new upstream, but then I haven't paid attention
> in a while either.
>
> --D
>
> [1] https://gist.github.com/djwong/6343451
>
>>
>> Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem to
>> contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the
>> "upstream" repository (1).
>>
>> Can we define which the canonical upstream source tree is, please, and
>> where the canonical Debian packaging branch should be? Then we can work
>> on pushing the changes back to the right places, rather than having
>> scattered branches all over the place. I noticed some changes to the
>> upstream source that don't appear to be in branch 1, for example.
>>
>> I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go and
>> this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can
>> work from.
>>
>> In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned that
>> one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my
>> commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git.
>>
>> So in summary:
>>
>> 1) Define and agree maintainers.
>> 2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop
>> Vcs-Git for now.
>> 3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already
>> reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there are
>> any objections to James uploading.
>> 4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches,
>> and push all commits to those places.
>>
>> In the meantime, I'll upload to Ubuntu as I can do that straight away
>> and we're quite close to release now. I hope that we can get Debian
>> straightened out soon.
>>
>> Robie
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Reply to: