Hi guys,
I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
I do so.
Thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
Hi Clint,
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
> wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
> I do so.
Whoops, I thought it was uploaded a month or so ago, but checking now it
lo
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:26 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
> > wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
> > I do so.
>
> Whoo
Hi Clint,
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
> Ubuntu.
>
> If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into
> Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally
> does get uplo
Hi all,
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 11:24 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
> > Ubuntu.
That would be an important goal. Feel free to contact me if you need
any changes to be more suitable for U
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 01:00 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 11:24 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
> > > Ubuntu.
> That would be an important goal
Hey Laszlo,
These changes are great! I incorporated all of your changes into
ceph.git, and also fixed up the ceph.spec.in to include the missed gui
files.
> I've changed the way debug parts of the packages are handled. It may
> sound harsh and so I'm open to revert that back to your way.
Yay,
Hi Sage,
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Sage: may you let me handle the packaging for Debian and Ubuntu? [...]
> Whatever you think would work best. I would like to keep the debian/
> files in some form or another (although whether they live in ceph.git is
> an open que
Hi Sage,
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> Great! There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2
> first, if it isn't too much trouble. I can do that today.
I've found the manpage problem that I've noted before. It's about
monmaptool, the CLI says it's usage
Hi Laszlo,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Sage,
>
> On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Great! There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2
> > first, if it isn't too much trouble. I can do that today.
> I've found the manpage problem
Hi Sage,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:15 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> Can you take a look at the 'testing' branch in git commit 5bdae2af?
> That's how I've been doing releases, more or less. Assuming packaging
> issues are sorted out prior to that point, that's all that should be
> needed, right?
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Sage,
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:15 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Can you take a look at the 'testing' branch in git commit 5bdae2af?
> > That's how I've been doing releases, more or less. Assuming packaging
> > issues are sorted out prior to
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> I'm not an ftp-master, but your package maybe rejected[2] for two
> reasons. I think only debian/copyright is not enough, all source files
> should have a comment header about their license in short. You have it
I don't see where this
Hi Clint,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:19 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
> with COPYING, then there's no need for a license header.
Got a confirmation from an FTP Assistan
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:19 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>> Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
>> with COPYING, then there's no
Hi Sage, Yehuda,
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
[ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ]
> I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
> with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now moot. It's all
> pushed to the ceph rc bran
Hey Laszlo,
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
> [ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ]
> > I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
> > with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion i
I have nothing to contribute to this, except:
Thanks to Sage and Clint for pinging us again!
And thanks to Laszlo for his excellent review and packaging work.
I'm happy to stay CC:d so I can keep track of this lovely packaging
process!
-- Asheesh.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-r
On Sat, 2010-12-18 at 22:08 -0500, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I have nothing to contribute to this, except:
>
> Thanks to Sage and Clint for pinging us again!
>
Here's another ping.
Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
hundreds and hundreds of packages long right no
Hi Clint,
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
> hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
> good to get CEPH into that NEW queue ASAP.
Please don't get me wrong, but did you check
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 20:09 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
> > hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
> > good to get CEPH
21 matches
Mail list logo