|To:||Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, anibal@xxxxxxxxxx, Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@xxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: The xfsprogs debian package|
|From:||Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:48:19 +1000|
|References:||<20110919170936.GA27014@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110919171047.GA3092@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110920105808.GA20601@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
On 20 September 2011 20:58, Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The forced NMUs are independent ... that's more a lack of time on my
part to keep up with current XFS development, so noone is doing the
uploads (and those doing NMUs don't talk to the xfs list, so their changes
tend to get lost). Its a bit of a mess, and largely thanks to me I guess.
Not doing so causes a few issues:
FWIW, the example below is the only example I'm aware of (AFAIK,
there are no other scripts ... *shrug* ... could be wrong there though,
but you'd think there'd be a big long list given the complaints).
For example the translation of the Debian native packages done by
Yeah, this is annoying but I could never convince myself it outweighed
the huge advantages of having developers able to build packages from
directly within the source tree.
It's great if xfsprogs can be translated in other language, but the
The strings so rarely change in xfsprogs, that in practice this is not a
real issue (IMO) ... its more just a reason thrown up to give a reason,
for people who just have to have an opinion (of which there are many).
- Making xfsprogs a native package also means that the upstream version
That logic seems a bit flawed to me - there's never a reason to change
something "directly in Debian", that couldn't have been merged in the
development xfsprogs tree - and a coordinated, reviewed release done.
- For archive space reason, if one upload only needs a small change in
xfsprogs is few 100KB in size, and is only uploaded once every few
months at most ... so again, not a hugely compelling argument when
you think about it (compared to the advantages, I mean, I don't doubt
some space would indeed be saved).
Again I don't ask for not putting the debian/ directory, it's totally
Having said all that, I really don't have a strong opinion - what xfsprogs
really needs is someone with the time to take ownership, and I've not
found the time recently. If someone would own it well, and for them its
easier to not have a native package (which it likely will be)... please go
ahead and manage the package however best suits.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: xfs deadlock in stable kernel 3.0.4, Christoph Hellwig|
|Next by Date:||Re: xfsprogs: fix some printf() warnings that show up for ia64 builds, Dave Chinner|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: The xfsprogs debian package, Aurelien Jarno|
|Next by Thread:||Re: The xfsprogs debian package, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|