Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Gianfranco, Here is a link to the latest version, which uses triggers instead of postinst and postrm. I think it's ready to upload, but please double check :-) http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.4.1-1.1.dsc Cheers, Nicholas

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Dimitri, On 22 April 2016 at 19:20, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > I haven't looked closely, but i have a lot dubious emails about btrfs package. > (a) i do not maintain backports, anybody is free to do those > (b) all of my packages are lowNMU, meaning I trust any/all DDs to

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 23 April 2016 at 00:06, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > On 21 April 2016 at 08:33, Christian Seiler wrote: >> Hi Gianfranco, >> >> On 04/21/2016 09:48 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: activate update-initramfs >>> do you think it is worth adding to the

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 21 April 2016 at 03:53, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Policy §10.4 says that /bin/sh script need to follow SUSv3 + some > extensions. Both "hash" and "command -v" are optional in SUSv3 (but they are > mandatory in SUSv4), so in theory you shouldn't use them. In practice, > however,

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 21 April 2016 at 08:33, Christian Seiler wrote: > Hi Gianfranco, > > On 04/21/2016 09:48 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>> activate update-initramfs >> do you think it is worth adding to the current NMU or it is better to leave >> it for >> a future upload? > > I'm not

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Gianfranco, On 04/21/2016 09:48 AM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >> activate update-initramfs > do you think it is worth adding to the current NMU or it is better to leave > it for > a future upload? I'm not sure if you meant to ask me, but just in case: I would suggest you do so, but it's

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

* Nicholas D Steeves , 2016-04-20, 19:41: "if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-initramfs ] && [ -e /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ]" I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that line. The previous attempts at fixing this (using 'hash' and 'command -v') are both

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Christian, >activate update-initramfs do you think it is worth adding to the current NMU or it is better to leave it for a future upload? the change looks good, I think it has no side effects, but I would like to hear another opinion :) G.

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi Nicholas, >Yes, I read this for my initial upload. When Gianfranco's requested >fixing piupart's warning I inferred that the manual was out of date >relative to the current/sid standard that piupart was checking for. oops, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. IIRC I asked to

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 04/21/2016 01:41 AM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > On 20 April 2016 at 18:33, James Cowgill wrote: >>> "if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-initramfs ] && [ -e >>> /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ]" >> >> I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that line. >> >> The

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 20 April 2016 at 18:33, James Cowgill wrote: >> "if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-initramfs ] && [ -e >> /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ]" > > I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that line. > > The previous attempts at fixing this (using 'hash' and

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 21:24 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > you missed the change on postrm, and BTW I think this is out of the > NMU scope, can we please leave the change > out? > I'm not too confident about it, I would like to just rename the > package and let xnox give his opinion

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi, you missed the change on postrm, and BTW I think this is out of the NMU scope, can we please leave the change out? I'm not too confident about it, I would like to just rename the package and let xnox give his opinion on the postinst and postrm scripts. maybe somebody on -mentors can give an

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 15 April 2016 at 09:25, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > also some issues might be fixed in a later release > > http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1/lintian > > I: btrfs-progs source: duplicate-short-description btrfs-tools

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

also some issues might be fixed in a later release http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#unstable/btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1/lintian I: btrfs-progs source: duplicate-short-description btrfs-tools btrfs-tools-dbg I: btrfs-progs source: duplicate-long-description btrfs-tools btrfs-tools-dbg W:

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 8 April 2016 at 17:43, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>Given that both of these will be broken if this package isn't >>uploaded, is now the time to upload it? > > I didn't understand this sentence. It turns out debian-cd can list both btrfs-tools and btrfs-progs

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi, >I've filed a bug and submitted a patch for debian-cd and have>contacted the >maintainers of partman-btrfs links to the updated >package on mentors and to a github repo, because jcristau on >#debian-installer said he preferred pulling from a git repo. How long >should I wait before filing

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Moreinfo removed, because Sledge on #debian-installer directed me to what I needed to patch in debian-cd. -- Nicholas

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

I've filed a bug and submitted a patch for debian-cd and have contacted the maintainers of partman-btrfs links to the updated package on mentors and to a github repo, because jcristau on #debian-installer said he preferred pulling from a git repo. How long should I wait before filing an RFS bug

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 5 April 2016 at 13:52, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > so, please remove the moreinfo tag once you have a feedback from -boot team. Will do. 'hope they rsvp soon! > also a reverse-dependency needs fixing here >

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, I like changes now, and also lintian/piuparts seems happy http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#experimental/btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1/buildlog so, please remove the moreinfo tag once you have a feedback from -boot team. also a reverse-dependency needs fixing

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Fixed @ same URL. Lots of beginner mistakes, plus carelessness wrt to Standards Version :-$ Whoops! Thank you for your patience. On 5 April 2016 at 13:07, Gianfranco Costamagna > BTW I'm not sure about the udeb package rename, there is no upgrade path > there, maybe you can get in touch with

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

something more: +Replaces: btrfs-tools-dbg (<< 4.4.1-1) +Breaks: btrfs-tools (<< 4.4.1-1) you missed a -dbg here +Package: btrfs-tools-dbg +Section: debug +Priority: extra +Architecture: linux-any +Depends: btrfs-progs-dbg, btrfs-progs (= ${binary:Version}), ${misc:Depends} +Description:

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Hi >I've addressed what you asked for, except for "[dropping] the dbg >package, they are autobuilt now (you need to use the ddbg migration I >think)", because I'm not sure if how that will affect a backport to >Jessie. Jessie+backported LTS kernel+matching btrfs-progs is my >primary target and

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

On 4 April 2016 at 09:20, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > I did a preliminary review on pkg-multimedia mail list [1] (where Nicholas > applied for the team join) > > > please address the issues I raised, and remove the moreinfo tag once done, > and I'll do another spin.

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Dimitri, I see you already acked the change on 780081, so I would like to sponsor this package (if I remember correctly you like also cosmetical changes on NMUs, so I'll ask to bump std-version and something more). I did a preliminary review

Bug#818687: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.4.1-1.1 [NMU]

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for an upload of "btrfs-progs" to experimental. In Bug#780081 the package maintainer had planned to do this, and I posted a link to this package to that bug report over two weeks ago. Given how difficult