Bug#506040: Status of ceph ITP?
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 that point, that's all that should be
> > needed, right?
> I think I've noted that cephfs and radosacl are without manpages.
> Please write one for them. Do you have an upstream changelog somewhere?
> ChangeLog is still empty. Really minor that I write 'new upstream
> release' to debian/changelog . Otherwise it's OK for uploading.
I'm wondering if it's even worth generating a ChangeLog. Maybe only for
the release tarball? It's all in git. I guess we can just put the old
debian/changelog at ChangeLog and continue summarizing the main items...
> > (BTW, the v0.23.2 bugfix release is mostly pointless as v0.24 is just a
> > couple days away anyway. Just for the sake of illustration...)
> There's no chance that ceph will be included in Squeeze and the next
> release of Ubuntu is several months away. You have time and it's your
> decision when should I first upload ceph. Please note that Debian is in
> freeze ATM, it may need even two weeks to be accepted to the archive[1];
> and even if it's in the NEW queue, I can upload new versions into it.
Okay. I'd mainly like to get the packaging issues sorted out so that it's
just a matter of updating on each release, and so that sid users can get
it.
> 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
> in cephfs.cc , cfuse.cc , etc; but missing in barclass.cc , cconf.cc ,
> cls_acl.cc and in others.
Any chance you want to submit a patch? Unless otherwise noted, everything
is LGPL2 and copyright whatever git log tells you.
> Second is that you link with OpenSSL when your
> license is (L)GPL. See their FAQ[3] and the fact that I can't find any
> upstream license file permitting that nor it's mentioned in
> debian/copyright . Also you may see the debian/copyright of my packages,
> like neon27[4]: it has a pointer to the full license file
> under /usr/share/common-licenses/ .
> On the other hand, it went into Ubuntu without any problems. Clint,
> Noèl? Feel free to post comment on what needs to be done with ceph
> packaging to be accepted on the first round.
Hmm, yeah, that may be an issue here. See [1] and [2]. Maybe we should
look at using gnutls instead of openssl.
sage
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00253.html
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg14110.html
Reply to: