Hi Dimitri, Thank you for taking a look at these.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 04:03:36PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 14 July 2017 at 00:59, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > M 0002-Ignore-.pc-the-quilt-state-tracking-dir.patch
> > * I read that this is supposed to be standard in dgit repos
>
> True, but upstream tarball ships .gitignore, and i'd rather not patch
> upstream .gitignore =/
> I personally have a global ignore setup on my machine to ignore .pc,
> or e.g. you can use local per-repository ignore.
> So i'm not taking this for now.
In that case, lets submit the patch upstream? I'd be happy to, if
you're busy, and I'm reasonably confident it would be accepted because
Debian/Ubuntu are serious distributions and it doesn't break anything
for anyone else.
> > N 0004-Move-all-binaries-back-to-sbin-Closes-786893.patch
> > * Completely up to you, of course ;-)
>
> Hmmmm...... maybe i should give up on this one and apply it.
Please consider it :-) If/when Debian/Ubuntu moves to /usrmerge by
default, then it will be confusing to have mkfs and admin tools in
/usr/bin rather than /usr/sbin. At some point in the future I'm sure
there will a tool that is limited to a subset of 'btrfs' that insures
users don't do unsafe things, and that tool will go in /usr/bin. IIRC
Ubuntu has /sbin and /usr/sbin for all sudoers, and Debian users who
complain can be referred to the traditional
PATH="$PATH:/sbin:/usr/sbin"
That said, thank you for your work on finding and challenging
arbitrary restrictions in initramfs and other parts of Debian.
> > I 0006-Exclude-non-free-RFC-BCP78-files-affects-test-suite.patch
>
> The code from RFC 6234 is under Simplified BSD License see sha.h. How
> is this non-free / what am I missing that you have spotted?
I took a look at this again, and tests/sha224-256.c is the only
non-free file. I've pushed a fixup to my proposed branch, and have
also attached it as a patch. 5f1d55d is a fixup for 9e41daf. As is
customary, I'll leave it to you to rebase/autosquash fixup before
pushing.
As I read it the licensing is a combination of Simplified BSD plus BCP
78 restrictions. The following article mentions two problems with BCP
78:
Problem #1: No Rights To Adapt Parts Of Contributions
Problem #2: No Rights Are Granted To Third Parties
https://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/
Also there's the lintian Error: license-problem-non-free-RFC-BCP78...
If you're certain that it's a false positive then you can probably
override it. I hope it's a false positive, because upstream finally
made the test suite actually work! Sadly, I think the error is
legitimate...
> > I 0008-Add-dversionmangle-to-handle-dfsg-version-suffix.patch
>
> On hold, until 0006 is discussed.
>
> > N 0011-debian-watch-Switch-to-version-4-and-add-repacksuffi.patch
>
> Simply updated to v4 without any other changes due to 0006.
If you agree, please take a look at these.
> > N 0012-Drop-btrfs-tools-transitional-dummy-package.patch
> > * Can be safely dropped now, because Stretch was released with
> > the transitional package
>
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/btrfs-progs
>
> But not yet Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. So 16.04 LTS was still with btrfs-tools,
> thus ideally I would want to drop this transitional package in May
> 2018, after 18.04 LTS has been released. Is that ok?
Agreed, we shouldn't break downstreams. I suspect waiting until after
the last Debian->Ubuntu sync for 18.04 rather than release would be
best, because Debian will probably be in some state of freeze at that
time. I don't think is is possible to drop a dummy package during
deep freeze, but I could be wrong.
> > N 0013-Switch-to-debhelper-10-and-automatically-generated-d.patch
> > * No time like the present, right? :-)
>
> Ack, with dropping btrfs-tools-dbg transitional package, because nobody cares
> =)
Haha, indeed! Ubuntu 18.04 will install btrfs-progs-dbgsym for anyone
who needs it.
> > N 0014-Update-changelog.patch
> > * Please delete entries for patches you reject
> >
>
> Instead of this, I simply used $ gbp dch to generate the changelog
> entries from the git commit messages and thus matches what has been
> applied. They are not as pretty, but I hope that is ok.
Sean Whitton likes very detailed and pretty changelogs, which is why I
took care to write a nice one, but honestly that's fine with me. I'll
configure my editor to hard-wrap lines for any future patches. Would
you please take care to reflow those long lines in the current
changelog when you're ready to release? The lintian Warning
debian-changelog-line-too-long occurs without this.
Cheers,
Nicholas
From 5f1d55d60a77afb4d66b025cb84509f45f646c78 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:56:26 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] fixup! Exclude non-free-RFC-BCP78 files (affects test suite) --- debian/copyright | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/debian/copyright b/debian/copyright index 91b88570..55b172d3 100644 --- a/debian/copyright +++ b/debian/copyright @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Contact: linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org Source: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/btrfs-progs.git -Files-Excluded: tests/sha224-256.c tests/sha.h tests/sha-private.h +Files-Excluded: tests/sha224-256.c Files: * Copyright: 2007-2012 Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/> -- 2.11.0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
