Bug#757746: Acknowledgement (RFP: softether -- multiprotocol virtual private network daemon)
Debian integration and more conformant packaging is here: * https://github.com/SoftEtherVPN/SoftEtherVPN/pull/74 Production quality builds for Ubuntu are here: * https://launchpad.net/~dajhorn/+archive/ubuntu/softether -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1MaG3TGdH40YnaMgaEY6WYPmZgpfd3Vg=e-kwhjiwy...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686447: Review of debian/copyright for zfs-linux
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Turbo Fredriksson tu...@bayour.com wrote: This have already been accepted (I saw a 0.6.3 update being accepted into the archive a couple of days ago). How were the licensing and namespace concerns resolved? After two years of waiting, it would be nice to know the decision criteria for such important management issues. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote: This problem can be circumvented easily, by not listing every file with different copyright as separate stanza, but instead aggregation all copyright holders for files licensed under CDDL-1.0 into the first, general stanza (which also would make debian/copyright a lot easier to review/maintain, e.g. avoids duplicated stanzas etc.). When I did this code audit, in part to satisfy Debian import requirements, the debian/copyright file was intentionally broken out like this to avoid ambiguity and ensure copyright pedigree. This is important because the downstream Debian sources are often disjoint or unmergeable from the upstream git repository -- as you just noticed -- and because there was an upstream conversion from svn to git that mangled some of the commit history. I have CCed the copyright holders of these man pages, to inform them that they have to license them under a DFSG-free license, or they won't be allowed into Debian main. Why are you making this request? Surely this is the responsibility of the package maintainers to do this work and maintain an upstream rapport. We haven't seen Aron Xu or Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez at the upstream issue tracker or support lists in more than a year. Conversely, Turbo Fredriksson is active and should therefore be added to the primary list of people with Debian FTP upload privileges. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/capbcu1pwkk+je-wlmh1-yc5k9zsv84j8zwzai9vgkivarjx...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686447: Review of debian/copyright for zfs-linux
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote: OK, it's fine to have them separated, but in that case shouldn't the copyright of the default stanza match what the COPYRIGHT file says, or maybe just add Sun Microsystems, Inc. to the default stanza? Yes. As you are the author of the man page in question here, do you agree to license the file man/man1/splat.1 under a DFSG-free license, e.g. GPL-2+? Yes, of course, according to the mainline project license. I haven't reviewed the debian/copyright of zfs-linux fully yet, but attached patch fixes some issues I already noticed: Thanks, syntax changes will happen on your advice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1PRV=bceekt24qmn-terxyeeoojs5g58xe+hcwevyt...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686447: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez clo...@igalia.com wrote: I'm only randomizing it when the current host's hostid is 0x, which I understand is an invalid hostid for ZFS and would case it to stop working properly. Isn't this the case? Where I used 0x earlier, it was used as a canary value so that an interrupted installation would fail gracefully. Given that hostid() deterministically generates a value when the /etc/hostid file is missing, this line 60 in the spl-dkms.postinst is still suspect: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=3 seek=1 of=/etc/hostid 2/dev/null My concern here is that changing the return of hostid() can break third-party software. (eg: FLEXlm.) The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs. Using the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect. We should agree on a common way of working. Either we use pristine-tar or not. Lets use pristine-tar then. This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems. Keeping compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is worthwhile and something that I want to do. Well. I love to have things as clean and small as possible. dh_autoreconf helps with that. But I understand your point. Not big deal. I intend to cease Lucid builds when it goes out of extended desktop support this April, so this issue will soon be mooted. github redirector is not longer needed, so why use it? http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch?action=diffrev2=10rev1=9 Also the url on the debian/watch on your packages is not working. Okay, it is obsolete. Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle lawyers. Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per installation is just not worth the risk. Ok. Thanks. This is a relief. This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the spl build. Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms. Is that a bug on dkms? This is more of an enhancement than a bug. Lustre, ZFS, and SPL are all separate projects upstream. No other Linux modules have such build dependencies outside of the packaging subsystem. was reported? Yes. Note that zfsonlinux/dkms has a recent bug fix that has not yet been submitted upstream. I don't agree in this. Shipping a commented file in /etc/sudoers.d will only cause trouble when the package is upgraded and tries to overwrite your local changes. The right place for such file would be /usr/share/doc/$package/examples/ Okay, that is a fair substitute. I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases. IMHO enabling second-class architectures (non-x86) is a goal to achieve. It would help to find bugs on the codebase. ZFS depends on assumptions about the Linux vmalloc that are false for 32-bit kernels. It is worth noting that ARM support in ZoL is arguably better than 32-bit x86 support. Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases? I don't understand what you mean with this. It sounded like there was an effort to get ZoL into Wheezy. Any version of ZoL that gets into a stable Debian release will have a very long lifetime, and it is likely that upstream will improve 32-bit support in the meantime. The warning is only show once. Once you have accepted it, it won't show anymore whenever you upgrade or reinstall. I understand that this could be annoying, but this is exactly for what's intended. Better annoy people when they install the package for the firs time, that let them run this without knowing that it could cause data corruption or instability on their systems on the long term. Okay, this is ultimately an issue of aesthetics, so I will defer. PS: Darik, subscribe yourself to pkg-zfsonlinux-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org if you are not already. I am subscribed. TTYS. -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capbcu1mzjfolebmxhk0aukjrddbjj+_gwnvexkuahargbrp...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686453: native ZoL debs are available at archive.zfsonlinux.org
ITP feedback is merged into the upstream repositories and, because we missed the release deadline, native ZoL packages for Debian 7 will be published at: * deb http://archive.zfsonlinux.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib The core ZoL packages are already posted for limited testing, and the necessary helpers will appear sometime this week. Afterwards, we should discuss what should go into the Alioth repository. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1PG7UUWkSEOgv4Gx16V=wycckrgvq5bhfaxqh6bpcf...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686453: zfsonlinux packaging
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote: Are there plans in modifying partman-zfs [1] to build on architectures supported by zfsonlinux / spl corresponding udebs? Yes, the installer for kFreeBSD can be enhanced for ZoL, but I want these bugs fixed before publishing it: * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/12 * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/16 * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/23 * https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/issues/27 Complete integration also requires /usr/sbin/dkms (and maybe /bin/mount) patches that are in public testing now but not yet submitted upstream. -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1NO2j=-3h8uyxgsyhquj6du1i7cpji8zuhp_zbnbkq...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686453: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian
? What happens if zfs invokes /usr/bin/net or /usr/sbin/exportfs before the network comes up? What happens if /tmp, /usr, or /var is on a zfs mount point? Integrate all lib* packages into libzfs1. This keep the package cleaner. To me seems overkill have one package for each .so file The libnvpair and libzfs packages are separate in all other ZFS implementations, and I don't see the benefit in doing something unusual for Debian. Note that the current library breakout was approved by upstream. when there is no real benefit (I don't expect any other package other than zfsutils to link against this libraries) Why do you expect that ZFS libraries will not be linked by other packages? At least one person has mentioned on the discussion list that they are working on a web interface, somebody else is working on gparted and nagios integration, and there are several commercial efforts doing things on top of ZoL. Many other minor cleans/fixes The total diff is 6,515 lines. Splitting functional changes into separate commits would be easier to review. Right now: * General compatibility with Ubuntu and Linux Mint is broken. * Upgrades to existing systems are broken. * Third party consumers are broken. -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capbcu1ovjfrptgfwg5odpjna2lznxnklzrpmqo+w+e7u086...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686453: zfsonlinux packaging
Thanks, and I see there is a .pc directory in your git repository, which is not necessary, quilt/dpkg-source will re-create it whenever they process the patches. Okay, amended as: https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl/commit/ce1eba9e029d64cacec1ae4f0f78a892a2cf60e5 -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1Mzv1_fo2ot=a=n=npkwbgqgwtr0383gy+xagpfjx4...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686453: zfsonlinux packaging
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Aron Xu a...@debian.org wrote: I've done a quick review of spl-linux package in PPA, and overall the package is in acceptable state on technical side, and here are my comments: (Thanks.) 1. Version number of upstream release needs to be mangled to something like 0.6.0~rc12, because 0.6.0-rc12 is larger than 0.6.0, and 0.6.0.xx isn't that easy to identify for users. 2. Recommend to clear d/changelog for uploading to Debian, it's a new start, :-) I asked upstream about this concern earlier. The current plan is to release the first non-RC as version 0.6.1 and use git-buildpackage versioning afterwards. (ie: There will be no official 0.6.0 release, only release candidates.) I intend to clear the changelog when I branch for wheezy and raring, and then use separate branches thereafter. 3. Use compat 9 and Build-Depends on debhelper = 9, this makes your binaries in usr/sbin being hardened at build-time. 4. Architecture should be linux-any, as they are only intended for Linux. 5. Revise descriptions in d/control based on Carlos's current draft in ITP. 6. Update Standards-Version to 3.9.4 7. spl-dkms.postinst spl-dkms.prerm should be removed because they are not actually used. 8. Add a dedicate paragraph in d/copyright for GPL-2+. Okay, done. See: https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl/commit/e07989f936096ef82b7807f904caed26c02a864a -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1Pt_JQR1t6xEVfqa-m=ro1041e8lfmof-hwbn_-cyb...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem
Did you tried to package or introduce ZoL on Debian previously? No, not formally. So, let me know if you are willing to co-maintain ZoL inside Debian with me (and with anybody else who wants to help with the effort also) and we could start by setting up a repository for the team. Yes, this sounds ideal. I will read the New Maintainers Guide again and contact you directly for instructions and coordination. In the meantime, please review the deb packaging that is already in the zfsonlinux/zfs and dajhorn/pkg-zfs repositories at Github. -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPbcu1PHMrcFbiaBUW3f=25r2yscen9cepvxjzjagc7qiwa...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem
Hello all, For more than two years, I've been maintaining the Ubuntu PPA for ZoL: https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs I put effort into keeping the packaging compatible with Debian Squeeze and Debian Wheezy, and I support a significant number of Debian users. If the Debian project is now willing to add the native ZFS implementation to regular distribution, then please consider me for the maintainer role. I've been looking for a mentor and sponsorship. -- Darik Horn dajh...@vanadac.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capbcu1pczom3qubtwanbawdtkzxjr5+qo5daypszp7ovzbt...@mail.gmail.com
