Hello, On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@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.baum...@progress-technologies.net> > License: GPL-2+ > > Files: debian/watch > Copyright: 2016, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> > License: GPL-2 > > > into something like > Files: debian/* > Copyright: 2007-2012, Daniel Baumann > <daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net> > 2016, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@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.