Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
On 10/09/2013 11:14, Guillem Jover wrote: I'd also prefer to keep it separate. And I'd also keep non-kFreeBSD support, because even if the other kernels do not support UFS, you can use the tools to do some setup or recovery operations, which seem pretty handy to me (fsck, mkfs, etc). I'll look into updating to latest upstream preserving the current support, hopefully in the coming days, been a bit busy lately, sorry! Any progress on this? I notice you removed yourself from Uploaders. If this means you're no longer interested in ufsutils, please let us know so that at least we can have an up-to-date version (even if less portable). -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5265b8e2.40...@debian.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Hi! On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 16:10:44 +, Robert Millan wrote: Guillem Jover: I'll look into updating to latest upstream preserving the current support, hopefully in the coming days, been a bit busy lately, sorry! That's what you said in July! :-) Indeed, and to be honest, one (but certainly not the only) of the reasons I've been setting this aside, is because having to deal with subversion is such a pain that, I've been finding other stuff to do. I've now done a git-svn clone so that I can work with something saner, and I'd put the repo in the project git space, so that others can use it and do not need to do the initial conversion too, but I seem to have lost the admin bit recently, so I guess I'll put it somewhere else. But please take no offense. I'm sure you've been busy, and I think we need to be honest with ourselves here. Maintaining this port takes a lot of effort and the ufsutils GNU/Linux patchset is an extra burden that makes it lag behind in almost every release. So please understand that my aim is not to assign blame, but to find solutions. Given that pristine source from upstream is already buildable and usable, my solution would be to move GNU/Linux support aside until/unless someone cares enough about it to get the patchset in a mergeable state and submit it upstream. That's my solution but it's just a proposal, it doesn't have to be the one we apply. So what's the solution you have in mind? How do you see this problem being solved in the long term? I've started patching the code against 9.2, there's some new stuff broken on GNU/Linux, I guess I'll dedicate few days, and if it snowballs too much, then I'll just restrict to kfreebsd-any for now. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131009060550.ga32...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Guillem Jover: I've now done a git-svn clone so that I can work with something saner, and I'd put the repo in the project git space, so that others can use it and do not need to do the initial conversion too, but I seem to have lost the admin bit recently, so I guess I'll put it somewhere else. What do you need it for? (other than unilaterally migrating the official repository to git) I've started patching the code against 9.2, there's some new stuff broken on GNU/Linux, I guess I'll dedicate few days, and if it snowballs too much, then I'll just restrict to kfreebsd-any for now. I'm glad to see you're making progress. If you find that this path can take too long, please let us know so that alternatives can be used in the meantime (at least temporarily). -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5255c18b.1020...@debian.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
On 09/10/13 21:50, Robert Millan wrote: Guillem Jover: I've now done a git-svn clone so that I can work with something saner, and I'd put the repo in the project git space, so that others can use it and do not need to do the initial conversion too, but I seem to have lost the admin bit recently, so I guess I'll put it somewhere else. What do you need it for? (other than unilaterally migrating the official repository to git) It's useful for offline change tracking and such, even if the official packaging repository doesn't use it. (I'd still prefer to stay with SVN, unless FreeBSD switch to Git and can demonstrate it working well). Using Git on top of checked-out CVS trees seems to be a popular workflow. It sounds like the best of both worlds; Git for offline and distributed working, and a more traditional linear VCS like SVN for the master repository. Having a single 'official' git-svn repository like Guillem's makes it easier for Git users to share things with each other, Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5255dafd.7030...@pyro.eu.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Hi! On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 20:50:19 +, Robert Millan wrote: Guillem Jover: I've now done a git-svn clone so that I can work with something saner, and I'd put the repo in the project git space, so that others can use it and do not need to do the initial conversion too, but I seem to have lost the admin bit recently, so I guess I'll put it somewhere else. What do you need it for? I'd have needed it to enable git for the project, and to create a git repo for the bi-directional bridge, so that people who want to keep using svn can do so, and anyone else that want to use git, can use the bi-directional git-svn repo, from a better place than my home on alioth. But I guess the current location work fine so. (other than unilaterally migrating the official repository to git) Uh, that would have never even crossed my mind… Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131009224830.ga4...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Guillem Jover: I'd have needed it to enable git for the project, and to create a git repo for the bi-directional bridge, so that people who want to keep using svn can do so, and anyone else that want to use git, can use the bi-directional git-svn repo, from a better place than my home on alioth. But I guess the current location work fine so. I'm not specially fond of this kind of proposals coming from people who are not actively involved with the port, but if it's useful in general and it doesn't prevent me from using SVN I have no objection with it. I suggest we wait a few days to see if everyone else is okay with this. (other than unilaterally migrating the official repository to git) Uh, that would have never even crossed my mind… It's what you said initially. I'm glad it was just a missunderstanding. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5255e5dc.4020...@debian.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2013-10-09): I'm not specially fond of this kind of proposals coming from people who are not actively involved with the port, but if it's useful in general and it doesn't prevent me from using SVN I have no objection with it. I suggest we wait a few days to see if everyone else is okay with this. I'm not sure why you think it could *not* be OK. Having to git svn clone a repository usually takes forever, so sharing that part is a big if not huge win for anyone not wanting to deal with svn directly. And since that doesn't interfere with people wanting to keep on using svn directly, why would that matter at all? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 23:25:16 +, Robert Millan wrote: Guillem Jover: I'd have needed it to enable git for the project, and to create a git repo for the bi-directional bridge, so that people who want to keep using svn can do so, and anyone else that want to use git, can use the bi-directional git-svn repo, from a better place than my home on alioth. But I guess the current location work fine so. I'm not specially fond of this kind of proposals coming from people who are not actively involved with the port, Is that directed at me? I've most probably not been as active as I previously was, but I've considered myself active in the port… but perhaps I should reconsider. but if it's useful in general and it doesn't prevent me from using SVN I have no objection with it. I suggest we wait a few days to see if everyone else is okay with this. I have the feeling you might have jumped to conclusions on the purpose of the the git-svn repository. But anyway, the git mirror is already public and synced from svn, so it's already useful and helpful for whoever else wants to use git-svn, besides me. And to be honest at this point I don't think I can be bothered to move the setup somewhere else, so I don't see what needs to be waited for anyway. (other than unilaterally migrating the official repository to git) Uh, that would have never even crossed my mind… It's what you said initially. I'm glad it was just a missunderstanding. Eh, I don't see where I've said anything like that, certainly not on this thread, nor on the new post about the git mirror nor on the previous RFC thread… Regards, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131010044401.ga10...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Hi! On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 20:46:54 +, Robert Millan wrote: I made a little experiment to simplify ufsutils and make it easier to update. By merging ufsutils into freebsd-utils package and using its build environment, with recent freebsd-glue (0.1.4) it is now possible to build ufsutils directly from pristine upstream source: http://people.debian.org/~rmh/kfreebsd-gnu/ufsutils/ - Drops GNU/Linux support [1] [1] I would argue that this is less of an issue these days, as UFS support has been dropped from Linux since version 3.10.1-1. TBH I don't see the point in doing an extra effort to support the userland bits when Linux itself doesn't. I'd also prefer to keep it separate. And I'd also keep non-kFreeBSD support, because even if the other kernels do not support UFS, you can use the tools to do some setup or recovery operations, which seem pretty handy to me (fsck, mkfs, etc). I'll look into updating to latest upstream preserving the current support, hopefully in the coming days, been a bit busy lately, sorry! Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130910091455.ga30...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Petr Salinger: Hi, I made a little experiment to simplify ufsutils and make it easier to update. By merging ufsutils into freebsd-utils package and using its build environment, with recent freebsd-glue (0.1.4) it is now possible to build ufsutils directly from pristine upstream source: I do not mind dropping non-kfreebsd support, but I would like to keep it as a separate source package - similarly as zfsutils. Well I think regrouping would be a slight improvement (takes less time for updates), but in comparison it's not that significant. TBH I don't feel strongly about it. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522f44bc.3090...@debian.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Guillem Jover: I'd also prefer to keep it separate. And I'd also keep non-kFreeBSD support, because even if the other kernels do not support UFS, you can use the tools to do some setup or recovery operations, which seem pretty handy to me (fsck, mkfs, etc). Well yes, I think we all agree that GNU/Linux support in ufsutils is a good thing. No need to argue about that. Problem is that preserving this feature requires additional manpower. And this resource has proven to be scarce... :-( I'll look into updating to latest upstream preserving the current support, hopefully in the coming days, been a bit busy lately, sorry! That's what you said in July! :-) But please take no offense. I'm sure you've been busy, and I think we need to be honest with ourselves here. Maintaining this port takes a lot of effort and the ufsutils GNU/Linux patchset is an extra burden that makes it lag behind in almost every release. So please understand that my aim is not to assign blame, but to find solutions. Given that pristine source from upstream is already buildable and usable, my solution would be to move GNU/Linux support aside until/unless someone cares enough about it to get the patchset in a mergeable state and submit it upstream. That's my solution but it's just a proposal, it doesn't have to be the one we apply. So what's the solution you have in mind? How do you see this problem being solved in the long term? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522f4484.70...@debian.org
Re: ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Hi, I made a little experiment to simplify ufsutils and make it easier to update. By merging ufsutils into freebsd-utils package and using its build environment, with recent freebsd-glue (0.1.4) it is now possible to build ufsutils directly from pristine upstream source: I do not mind dropping non-kfreebsd support, but I would like to keep it as a separate source package - similarly as zfsutils. Petr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lnx.2.00.1309090946370.13...@contest.felk.cvut.cz
ufsutils experiment (please comment/test)
Hi, I made a little experiment to simplify ufsutils and make it easier to update. By merging ufsutils into freebsd-utils package and using its build environment, with recent freebsd-glue (0.1.4) it is now possible to build ufsutils directly from pristine upstream source: http://people.debian.org/~rmh/kfreebsd-gnu/ufsutils/ From my perspective, using this approach has a few pros and cons. The ones I can think of are... Advantages: - Easy updates - Fosters better coordination with upstream - Less danger of introducing new bugs (things like #646518 come to mind) Disadvantages: - Makes freebsd-utils source larger - Drops GNU/Linux support [1] I would appreciate some testing and feedback in general. [1] I would argue that this is less of an issue these days, as UFS support has been dropped from Linux since version 3.10.1-1. TBH I don't see the point in doing an extra effort to support the userland bits when Linux itself doesn't. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5224f93e.2050...@debian.org
