Bug#756451: RFS: libcgroup/0.41 [ITA] -- control and monitor control groups

[Christian Kastner <debian@kvr.at>]

Hi Vincent,

thanks for the review.

On 2014-08-03 03:10, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>> I am looking for a sponsor for a new version of package libcgroup.

>> The package builds lintian-clean with sbuild. The source package can be
>> found here:
>>
>>     http://www.kvr.at/debian/pool/main/libc/libcgroup/libcgroup_0.41-5.dsc

I updated this package with a newer version containing the fixes
mentioned below.

>>     - Use versioned Breaks instead of Conflicts
> 
> cgroup-tools should also have a versioned Replaces relationship
> against cgroup-bin.

Updated.

>>     - Update Vcs- fields to collab-maint
> 
> Please update the collab-maint git repo with your changes.

I'd like to wait with taking over this repository until I have formally
taken over as the maintainer.

In the meantime, I've temporarily pushed my changes to this repo:

    http://code.kvr.at/git/?p=libcgroup.git;a=summary

The repo at collab-maint wasn't up-to-date so I git-import-dsc'ed every
missing version from snapshot.debian.org into the repo above.

>>    - 0005-Syntax-fixes-for-man-pages
> 
> A small nitpick, DEP-3's Forwarded header usually contains a link to
> the upstream bug report / mailing list archive where the bug was
> forwarded, instead of just "yes".

Habit from other packages, where I talk to upstreams without tracker or
ML directly by mail.

As upstream has a tracker, I removed the Forwarded header for now and
will re-add it, with an URL, once it's added to the tracker. Again, I'd
like to wait until I have taken over the package.

> debian/copyright:
> - src/pam/pam_cgroup.c is dual-licensed BSD and LGPL 2.1, not BSD or
> GPL 2. That also makes the GPL-2 license block in d/copyright
> obsolete.

Hm... while you're right that something is off, the way I read it, it's
mostly (BSD or GPL-2), to which LGPL-2.1 code was added. Therefore, I
updated the License specification and added a standalone block for the
LGPL-2.1.

Side note: it's unclear from the license text and context of this file
which version of the GPL is spoken of, but tracing the original code it
can be seen that it really is the GPL-2.