Hi Gianfranco On 6 May 2016 at 04:32, Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, it would be nice to avoid having a possible and problematic version even > in experimental. > Specially because it might be source of data-losses to the end users. > I agree, however, upstream's official recommendation is to use a version of btrfs-progs at least as new as the kernel. Every release fixes some bugs, sometimes serious. For example, btrfs-progs-4.5 fixes "subvol sync: fix crash, memory corruption", but the whole 4.5 series is implicated in the bug reports I've read. I'm closely following the associated threads on the linux-btrfs mailing list. It's possible that the reports are due to buggy hardware, something in the md layer of the kernel, or something in LUKS. I plan to repackage for sid after these issues are resolved. In the meantime isn't experimental the best way to honour upstream intent/recommendations, while insulating users by keeping it out of the normal upgrade stream for all dists?
> > BTW, please ask xnox to comaintain the package, if you really want to help in > packaging it. > Waiting for his reply. > BTW how do you feel about creating a dummy btrfs-tools-udev package too? it > seems it has been left behind on the archive > probably you want to break+replace it too, right? This was discussed with the D-I team some time ago, and they said it was better to patch partman-btrfs and debian-cd. Both have been patched and are now in the archive. > > > and now the copyright review (partial) > > + * Copyright (C) 2012 STRATO AG. All rights reserved. > > ^^ missing > > many of the copyrights seems to be gpl2 only, not gpl2+ > What is the convenience script used to do copyright review? :-) I'll fix these in my next upload. Thanks again for the review! Nicholas