Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>]

Hi Nicholas,


>I agree, however, upstream's official recommendation is to use a

>version of btrfs-progs at least as new as the kernel.  Every release
>fixes some bugs, sometimes serious.  For example, btrfs-progs-4.5
>fixes "subvol sync: fix crash, memory corruption", but the whole 4.5
>series is implicated in the bug reports I've read.  I'm closely
>following the associated threads on the linux-btrfs mailing list.
>It's possible that the reports are due to buggy hardware, something in
>the md layer of the kernel, or something in LUKS.  I plan to repackage
>for sid after these issues are resolved.  In the meantime isn't
>experimental the best way to honour upstream intent/recommendations,
>while insulating users by keeping it out of the normal upgrade stream
>for all dists?


well, it makes sense this way

>Waiting for his reply.


this seems the most important bit, I would appreciate you opening a bug report against
the package (severity:important),  explaining why you want a version in experimental, leaving xnox
the time to answer properly, and don't forget to propose yourself as comaintainer.
>This was discussed with the D-I team some time ago, and they said it
>was better to patch partman-btrfs and debian-cd.  Both have been
>patched and are now in the archive.


ok, so please ask ftpmasters to remove it, otherwise the old source package will still be in the archive.
(and the old binary too)

>What is the convenience script used to do copyright review?  :-)  I'll
>fix these in my next upload.


not sure, maybe "cme fix" can work, or license-reconsile, even if I usually look at the diff between the
current version in archive and the version that I have to sponsor.

>Thanks again for the review!


thanks to you, waiting for your feedback then :)

Gianfranco