Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Hi, Arno, CC to onlyjob too, he is interesting on flashcache too. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27.07.2011 07:49, Liang Guo wrote: flashcache don't compatible with linux 3.0.0, do you have any solution for this? I haven't tried it with Linux 3.0 (yet), but as flashcache is under active development and it runs fine on rather recent kernels as well, this should not be a crucial problem. However thanks for your hint. Any News on flashcache packaging -- Liang Guo http://bluestone.cublog.cn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Liang Guo, On 14.10.2011 19:45, Liang Guo wrote: Any News on flashcache packaging yes, Dmitry and me joined a packaging team and our package is mostly ready. If you know how to build source packages please have a look to [1] and please do: git clone git://anonscm.debian.org/collab-maint/flashcache.git make -f debian/rules get-orig-source dpkg-buildpackage -b -us -uc Any feedback is welcome. Regarding an official package we will try to get flashcache into Debian Sid very soon. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/flashcache.git;a=summary - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOmH3AAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNt2C0P/AqWtZLy2ksARv+JsxMnEz+f 9opw+xVHOg26goKT7tz2zL3kwIZmPQ5/CDkm+De3nTGFmPxF3s7JpsW1KcLZyon2 u5Vu6nBv3WgFIhRjMEgG7y8tVoXDHgxLnkLlA6q427dNJDZvrc9Ruo4PG32XgEro bzgAaNV0qXdzgsOLoQzvwd5Zm/rBsg5b4d6HcWVI9DoqCtu543YdkqO+JlT3jDXI 1YRH4wiG/wPV+eQ/3KrpIQMk+jyredkkP9IOnjiPx/Ttha7p+OZRdjeKVRAmh1QB uAnhTfZDO0G5qOkav64/fz86veF0Mhng++yiUC6TEql8sUllyZicUdbToXZZkrc0 XbofSz5nx4VqIEZlA9Fp/cuQcHz2ZQt2SFzNUSd/0iJzlvfC8xAyL0qTORyhIWmm akB6dmZh/g8Tovdk9JocAHCwK7GcJebvVNQllt+MIQkGhUR+yFyV8kSzUqBJl0lC 3hNmnIiaUD5TQgkErwcf8/DLeyu0UnkkRKUjO6Fo99/HhE60UEm9vcSnrykNWEkA o7N+08gtvHnQHCjrkJ6o2oZo6BThvRykNjHfTdXnygS3T8SaArm/lsUIpS5dBNVd w8cznrFymYPaTSFb1EueOHS/fDDVcm3QbypZm2buf7L74pOJc5t/pk8l+o9JmVMa SrUkpd1yX/qu6tEkYDEz =Lvpg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On 22.09.2011 04:38, onlyjob wrote: Congratulations upon mentors.debian.net hardware upgrade - well done. Thanks, but unrelated :) As you may already know upstream made number of changes, notably: * updated documentation * initramfs hook for early flashcache_load invocation * updated Makefiles (upstream kindly accepted my minor patch (similar to yours) for $(DESTDIR) compatibility) Yes. I merged upstream's most recent commit and prepared a new upstream release, including your patch and thus removed mine. I updated the man pages by incorporating recent upstream documentation update. I updated the man pages. However you can also do yourself, if you intend to become my co-maintainer. Same holds for everything else you want to improve - but see below. I'm quite inexperienced with git so I couldn't figure out how to access your repository. Is my Alioth account onlyjob-guest allowed to push? Yes, it technically is. However I'd ask you to send me git format patches instead of pushing changes, I can review first. Once I'm convinced I can fully trust your work, I'll ask you to push directly instead. I made you official co-maintainer, by the way [1]. Don't worry on the Maintainer/Uploaders difference. That has merely historic reasons, I don't have any more powers within the package than you. It appears to me that you might want to make a separate branch from my package but ultimately it is up to you. I see no point in two packages at all. I think I merged all improvements from your package into mine. If you disagree, let me know if you miss something. As far as I know, you are only worried on the date string and I think I solved that. Besides, your version number is wrong anyway, as its 1.0+... not 1.0~. Please compare outputs of: $ dpkg --compare-versions '1.0+1' '=' '1.0' echo True $ dpkg --compare-versions '1.0~1' '=' '1.0' echo True I'm not sure if you want to keep your workaround for mounting flashcache volumes on boot after introducing initramfs hook by upstream. (Frankly I didn't have a chance to test this functionality yet.) Yes, but the initramfs hook does not setup anything. It only provides the binaries in the initrd. It still does not provide any mechanism to setup such volumes upon boot. You would need to hack a initramfs script to execute a mount script upon boot. What do you think about version number differences between our packages? (I really like my get-latest-source target) I updated mine to be more precise, i.e. I added hh:mm to the version number. I think that's enough. Besides we do pretty much the same thing in our targets, except that your package has more build dependencies because you use bashisms and Perl. Both are essential packages for now (well, perl-base at least), but there are some thoughts to remove bash from that list. I'd prefer to keep dependencies low. Maybe we have at least one thing in common after all: I noticed you've chosen Perl to write flashcache_mount - I think it is nice because I love Perl. There are surely more common things. Since we're interested in the same package, that's a very visible common thing, isn't it? I think we can stop CC:ing the bug now. Let's do any further technical discussion in private. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/flashcache.git;a=commitdiff;h=52ba48f241cf2e9b721582ec2dbd9fe1a34e4e44 - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOezHBAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtwa8P/1oeAOinLLEHhJh9v/kiO+9n vIm0dLlfXpiD1GErtO9SYUllLW3UNxnBIEdihWQWaSSUA1H7ludIHkvMrEPLHVma LmVnr+t7m3aBInOqX80SPB8CuhX2exRYzHUh4L1IH2+mqK+vidrMN6uv1UTOWi3s i0PhTp9YJbHQlb8hJAoOg7E4a52lETgTBUVwbodKETfqaG3gkO4GJDLJ3mF8cuqF 6pl9LkqQpOc6+hRJg3j+hO5o9B6qj+WDSL19CuwCo7wLAt/YyadFsANjqYPutX1B aSCtVjzKR+RcIdaYeYFct3ptQst6CrLB1FumBy4PfX9NJlHskCCF4mGrazA3igsf P20ArtqkhOMDviltfKBZ8yKcHPVTtZEGYGq0VU8QJiUJy1n+aMVfDnSPkZGmf/UM bt1cMwU5JPzFu8YGpJ/0fnrrOWhQGJ3xoo8DeIcCS211b03V7L4yCWNpsUgT1ZPI o6bJyZ8HkQSzsWZgW7SrkrhCTyGwF5ouiDsHmJCdiUV8lu6/KgVR61ZQ8/6y6fiO t7NTv5CsX53Oi6dLlz4KV22JCth+28urVEsxBo4tQfUzrow7bDYw629lesI+0hG6 Bd9IFEv3LCVLnku11MOE4TB4KFIjBnN7y1m95x0xZn8ES6rgBuJHpaIvkObQNUIs ASTxKacG5oirRt49xF8M =qFTb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Dear Arno, Congratulations upon mentors.debian.net hardware upgrade - well done. Thank you for your patience - you needed so much of it with me. I have all my questions answered in mentor's mail list but there are many other questions regarding how co-maintainership will work for us, unless your are still mad at me. I noticed you integrated man pages into your package - thanks for this. As you may already know upstream made number of changes, notably: * updated documentation * initramfs hook for early flashcache_load invocation * updated Makefiles (upstream kindly accepted my minor patch (similar to yours) for $(DESTDIR) compatibility) I updated the man pages by incorporating recent upstream documentation update. In addition my package got some review and feedback from mentors recently. I addressed all the issues but the repository one (mine is not publicly available), and since yours already there, there is no point to create another one. I uploaded my updated source package to mentors.debian.net: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/flashcache/flashcache_1.0~20110921014850-1.dsc Please feel free to pull all latest changes from it. I'm quite inexperienced with git so I couldn't figure out how to access your repository. Is my Alioth account onlyjob-guest allowed to push? Anyway you're the boss so I'm not going to do anything without you permission (and instructions). It appears to me that you might want to make a separate branch from my package but ultimately it is up to you. I'm not sure if you want to keep your workaround for mounting flashcache volumes on boot after introducing initramfs hook by upstream. (Frankly I didn't have a chance to test this functionality yet.) What do you think about version number differences between our packages? (I really like my get-latest-source target) Please advice on the best way to cooperate and sorry for troubles. Maybe we have at least one thing in common after all: I noticed you've chosen Perl to write flashcache_mount - I think it is nice because I love Perl. Regards, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dmitry, On 20.09.2011 03:54, onlyjob wrote: Well, even if this functionality might be nice to have, it is not required and it is not in upstream. So? Have a look to other packages. Most provide convenience wrapper, patches and additions if upstream's cruft is not usable enough. Many of those additions ultimately are being pushed to upstream and often merged for successive releases. Remember: A Debian package targets a large user base, not your specialized use case only. Hence it must provide the greatest possible convenience and flexibility. For example cryptsetup package (which is also managing device mapper pass-through devices) do not have this functionality. crypttab(5). Read it. This functionality arguably may be considered a separate job, which might be packaged separately. Not in Debian. In Debian we treat all packages as first class citizen, and especially for new packages we try to introduce only well shaped, complete packages. OK, I'd like to get the better understanding of what's the problem here. Am I expected to file a duplicate ITP if I already have a solution? No, per package only one WNPP bug exists. You are expected to contact the maintainer or WNPP bug owner to learn about possibilities to contribute. Do we allow competition in Debian, or does whoever filed ITP first, get a monopoly over packaging? Debian allows competition in a sense that several technical solutions for one problem may coexist with each other. For example, more than one web server is packaged in Debian. There is no competition among packagers itself. I do not compete with you for making a better package than you do. We either do that together, or the person who came first does. Even for NMUs (Non Maintainer Uploads) you are not supposed to hijack packages, but to fix a very specific problem in a minimal invasive way. Moreover, such NMUs typically are announced and uploaded with 7+ days delay to let the regular maintainer step in if he wants to. At least anyone is free to fix someone else's bugs even though someone might be already working on it. Typically one announces publicly if one is working on a particular bug of a foreign package. After all a bug fix is something completely different than hijacking a package. Moreover, no maintainer will reject patches if they are of good quality. That would be silly. Visibility of your progress is questionable since in the ITP had no information about location of your effort or the progress you've made. You could have asked, just like you did two days ago. You see, you can reach me that way. I'm not sure if I should care about finding a sponsor - if you have one, your work will get a better chance to be included when you finish. As I said, you will have a hard time finding a sponsor, once (if) he realizes you try to rule out someone else by your upload. I won't hinder you to try it - not I could after all. Meanwhile my package make sense. You are free to use it. You are free to announce it wherever you want. You are free to advertise it. I am just pointing out, the way you are trying to introduce your package to Debian is somewhat impolite and discouraged among members of the Debian community. Oh, and by the way: We target unstable/Sid for new packages. That distribution is not at all intended to be used by users. Our users are expected to run Debian Stable - currently Squeeze - which will never see a flashcache package. Neither mine nor yours. I'm not sure what's the meaning of hijacking in this context. I made all the work by my own independently. By hijacking I mean you are trying to take over to maintain a certain package which is under active maintenance by someone else (being effectively available to end users or not, does not matter here). I see no drama if one of us will not be maintainer for flashcache package - there are plenty of other opportunities to contribute. Agreed. Yet I came first with the idea to package flashcache. : What I don't understand is what exactly your offer is. You're already free to take whatever you need for your package from mine - my understanding is that you don't even need permission for it. Right. I can, exactly like you are allowed to take my changes for your package. As I said, that's not my intention though. If I see interest by someone else to do hard packaging work, why should I reject that opportunity? There are many packages in Debian which desperately seek help, why should I reject such an offer? Obviously a package can be maintained by more than one individual, a co-maintainer is pretty much what the name suggests: Two persons equally responsible for a single package. Both of us will get bug reports, both of us are allowed to commit to our repository, both of us are responsible to fix bugs and, - if this is what you are worried about - you are equally credited for your work. This is probably because I desperately need working
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Disclaimer: I didn't look at either of your packages. I don't even know what flashcache is about. Do we allow competition in Debian, Competition for package maintenance is a complete waste of time, both for maintainers and their sponsors. or does whoever filed ITP first, get a monopoly over packaging? You can call it monopoly if you like. It's the same kind of power that a maintainer has over his packages that are already in the archive. Would you repackage from scratch, say, trafficserver[0], and then look for a sponsor claiming that your package is somehow better? I guess not... Visibility of your progress is questionable since in the ITP had no information about location of your effort or the progress you've made. Assuming that there's no progress on the ITP just because there's on evidence on the contrary is simply wrong. You didn't ask Arno what's status of his packaging before announcing that your package is ready. [0] http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/trafficserver.html -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dmitry, On 18.09.2011 16:25, onlyjob wrote: When you mention technical problems, I wish you could be more specific. You made some semantic errors Lintian can't detect in its purpose as static analysis tool. As I said, I didn't extensively check your package. Among the most obvious things are: * For example the VCS fields do not denote upstreams VCS, but the packaging VCS in Debian. * You provide no mechanism to setup a flashcache volume on boot. * You are not supposed to copy the DKMS script into your package, but to invoke them at runtime. * You close an ITP bug you don't own ... mine. * Code of Flashcache is GPL-2 _only_ but you release your Debian packaging as GPL-3+. That will cause trouble as soon as you need to merge patches (at least). I don't quite see the point in merging something working into something what doesn't work, and not the other way. Fair enough. Please note this is not how we work in Debian, though. I am the owner of the ITP bug and I made visible progress since I filed the ITP. You will very likely have a hard time in finding a sponsor while trying to hijack someone else's packages. This does not give you very much alternatives to my offer, besides of stepping down as maintainer (in Debian) completely. Your approach wasn't exactly polite and yet I offered you to form a team together with me. (With all due respect there are more than some minor things you didn't address i.e. your package is not usable yet even though you did a lot of work.) I didn't say my package would be ready to use. That's the reason why I didn't try to introduce it to Debian yet. However I believe, the package is (sort of) usable as is. If you find some problems, I am eager for letting me know. For practical reasons giving up working package may be not the best option for people who might need it. Merging is not exactly the same as giving up. Also, Debian is not only about working packages, but also about quality packages, and that takes time. Something which just works somehow is trivial to achieve. Note, by that I didn't want to imply at all that your package would not be a quality package. I am just not confident enough about mine yet, as I know it lacks certain features including but not limited to tested init.d support and manpages. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOdx1YAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtZdgQAJf09vPCOOkZTRuJYcsQc1D9 rXC2PcW3XviT44hvLJdUvPilq6xPI4d4964hNdmagd1fchtjZ9xJl/bfIjLJGOfA fIdPr7SSX6LHHnS7On04DEX9AL0brc04AOYqcNyjAFV01pRM5z3p1xgDDP7GeBF5 Cvtksvasyq303GwpR2Y4O6lXeoM7AcMYIIeAM5xp7G2AIDLKaqeFTQKI/0I4s3k9 rRR7XBGyCIpjO7CL/kzPRVQnfm+YwPjTIBQ9BJXb8X7j7rGlt4EJ+YzBuEkIpkO6 4qwftFO/zRaYIJ2HOPDQU95bIrecj8hsNJrbzCIgd10K7ePr0wQP41UWR6+PjW/L J3aDsizeud2KW7hDO3HSC1HQwCmpE2NF6NynXlzYtq5Q9UI+n24+E3AW8lbFS4DZ oinJjKwyLjJJQB9UIiNV6tq/Ss5KXbtMqd410S6a5vwZhk+adEG1wUOtzpFax1FV aM9dmFWZDALMKEhd8JQtnyS0OCUVKMwEB8yl41T5VqYtRQPO8BekcNCgK11n1BJG EPQlnffU/GH2p/WgRtAWq+dmmAWxLPPh/QOcRPHGkJLuCULSp0Q6D+8D0a+6zrRD B4FbRye44F0j4rBXkNHJ5438Rx0QZeYIgO6wmR69Yr9NIFszgCk88xwDQdO6CQvw uqGRpFYY/AmjVYPwogbi =0NEQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Hi Arno, Thank you very much for your feedback. Much appreciated. I well relicense files in debian/* as GPLv2+ * You provide no mechanism to setup a flashcache volume on boot. Well, even if this functionality might be nice to have, it is not required and it is not in upstream. So it is not a flaw in my package. Providing extra functionality should not be a blocker for package release. For example cryptsetup package (which is also managing device mapper pass-through devices) do not have this functionality. This functionality arguably may be considered a separate job, which might be packaged separately. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said: A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. * You close an ITP bug you don't own ... mine. OK, I'd like to get the better understanding of what's the problem here. Am I expected to file a duplicate ITP if I already have a solution? Do we allow competition in Debian, or does whoever filed ITP first, get a monopoly over packaging? At least anyone is free to fix someone else's bugs even though someone might be already working on it. Fair enough. Please note this is not how we work in Debian, though. I am the owner of the ITP bug and I made visible progress since I filed the ITP. You will very likely have a hard time in finding a sponsor while trying to hijack someone else's packages. This does not give you very much alternatives to my offer, besides of stepping down as maintainer (in Debian) completely. Your approach wasn't exactly polite and yet I offered you to form a team together with me. I understand the importance and benefits of collaboration. Visibility of your progress is questionable since in the ITP had no information about location of your effort or the progress you've made. I was ready to file my own ITP but yours was already there, for over a month without update. I'm not sure if I should care about finding a sponsor - if you have one, your work will get a better chance to be included when you finish. Meanwhile my package make sense. I'm not sure what's the meaning of hijacking in this context. I made all the work by my own independently. To some extent there is a duplication of effort which we could avoid if I were able to find your work. Whatever I do you are in better position to have your work to be accepted into Debian, so there is probably nothing for you to worry about. This does not give you very much alternatives to my offer, besides of stepping down as maintainer (in Debian) completely. Your approach wasn't exactly polite and yet I offered you to form a team together with me. I never meant to be impolite and I am sorry if I happen to do something rude accidentally. I see no drama if one of us will not be maintainer for flashcache package - there are plenty of other opportunities to contribute. I'm OK to be a co-maintainer (two brains always better than one) and I appreciate your offer. What I don't understand is what exactly your offer is. You're already free to take whatever you need for your package from mine - my understanding is that you don't even need permission for it. There are some minor concerns of mine like package version numbers: for example my numbering may not be exactly orthodox, but it can be translated directly into upstream checkout version. But my biggest concern is package availability. If my estimation is accurate, without usable outcome you spent about 4x times more time working on your package than I spent on mine. This is probably because I desperately need working package. Would teaming with you would require for me to work on both packages until you will be ready to release yours? Probably yes and I'm not sure if I want it or understand why it is worth it. (Or should I do it merely for not hurting your feelings?) I believe I did little wrong by doing work on the package and I refuse to feel guilty about it. Even though co-maintaining seems reasonable, you made it sound like a favor to me, which is fine because I'm not proud. But at this point I think someone else (a Debian Developer) should tell us who should merge with who according to our work and not according to who logged an ITP first. I'm not in position to compare the quality of our packages. Of course both of us eager to do the best work possible. Having said this I understand that perfect work takes forever to finish. We need to release something now, and I believe I'm a little bit ahead of you in that regards (quite accidentally though). In the end it doesn't matter who's package will remain the one as long it will be available. Please feel free to merge whatever you find useful. I hope you'll excuse me for my lack of understanding (and experience) of what it is to be a co-maintainer. Please let me know of any procedures you believe we should agree on. All the best, Dmitry. On 19 September 2011 20:45, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18.09.2011 06:21, onlyjob wrote: Recent package from http://mentors.debian.net works on 3.0.0-1-amd64 I am aware, you can see my package on [1]. Its pretty much complete but I am not finished yet. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/flashcache.git;a=summary - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOdb9zAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtqcoQAMDqQSs6CPdw6TdwEBTlSU4t Fb+Tn5dAmq29bn8E2R2E6hZWQQC6B4FF58oZnzurOPsP16kPk/8KXmZ9J/on0pvq lz1bcLe4d9Sp/6iclXiYwl+YTYQIRB+WNpl1kD98ZqGhF8FZqQG2+s+VvLpgaugf OA1oom09Ue/P3HfS07k8X/8Rzd6/DixNIkCwF569k2FKyhjnqayRUfI4xq+uYFYi 8K0PYvovkin1twouc0dzvlmvWE9o3p8ANvYxf9FqnkmzpGSfHQxGqKiXn+oLLcCm /iALXqd6+X6t/YXr4sb9XI0l/6+eM3ltVzQhDGZ5JPHipmlN3aSHmcc0yI57J2BU OZ06t5Lv8BtlqVgr7OMqXb7JHZaci+snUT0DXRpRT48nj/n+GyXHk2iMWPUL0Ds+ 5jWzzsWuvUNGeZodNWK+T2fdMs1QeGwd3b1HVs/KwnD6r9prAvh8ayaXn5SoA+W8 1ZVb5EL+oz7FEH5ZGJ+1pKhRdb7vpDhCzXCFYYT4szNqCaPxekrm4ZhWz9X1hCKl Pl+dLL5DYzYsfMvSphPR3fEBb6q9pabd8zUBI8wLhc8ENsAOtlFxCudfpsESMtzd UeDifQ/7RCZXW4OMgJr9lsd966Ad/C8/I04r9tHW8EYqTynLNISlmQ6SbDNLNNke JCvg7PtjW+u42ns3dF5g =RZQ5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
No, I wasn't aware of yours... I reckon we've been working independently I just completed my own... There are definitely some similarities but also differences in the way we did it. Cheers, Dmitry. On 18 September 2011 19:52, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18.09.2011 06:21, onlyjob wrote: Recent package from http://mentors.debian.net works on 3.0.0-1-amd64 I am aware, you can see my package on [1]. Its pretty much complete but I am not finished yet. [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/flashcache.git;a=summary - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOdb9zAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtqcoQAMDqQSs6CPdw6TdwEBTlSU4t Fb+Tn5dAmq29bn8E2R2E6hZWQQC6B4FF58oZnzurOPsP16kPk/8KXmZ9J/on0pvq lz1bcLe4d9Sp/6iclXiYwl+YTYQIRB+WNpl1kD98ZqGhF8FZqQG2+s+VvLpgaugf OA1oom09Ue/P3HfS07k8X/8Rzd6/DixNIkCwF569k2FKyhjnqayRUfI4xq+uYFYi 8K0PYvovkin1twouc0dzvlmvWE9o3p8ANvYxf9FqnkmzpGSfHQxGqKiXn+oLLcCm /iALXqd6+X6t/YXr4sb9XI0l/6+eM3ltVzQhDGZ5JPHipmlN3aSHmcc0yI57J2BU OZ06t5Lv8BtlqVgr7OMqXb7JHZaci+snUT0DXRpRT48nj/n+GyXHk2iMWPUL0Ds+ 5jWzzsWuvUNGeZodNWK+T2fdMs1QeGwd3b1HVs/KwnD6r9prAvh8ayaXn5SoA+W8 1ZVb5EL+oz7FEH5ZGJ+1pKhRdb7vpDhCzXCFYYT4szNqCaPxekrm4ZhWz9X1hCKl Pl+dLL5DYzYsfMvSphPR3fEBb6q9pabd8zUBI8wLhc8ENsAOtlFxCudfpsESMtzd UeDifQ/7RCZXW4OMgJr9lsd966Ad/C8/I04r9tHW8EYqTynLNISlmQ6SbDNLNNke JCvg7PtjW+u42ns3dF5g =RZQ5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18.09.2011 14:03, onlyjob wrote: No, I wasn't aware of yours... I reckon we've been working independently I just completed my own... There are definitely some similarities but also differences in the way we did it. I briefly looked at yours. It has some technical problems, but I can see some minor things I didn't address yet. In particular you made some preliminary man pages. If you want, I offer you to merge your additions to my package and successively maintain the package together with me. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOdei6AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtfe4QAMAk9kBITgViMK9rpNb3w6n3 ksuFnZp4EFhxa1EXfyVUdCOn6wWo/byo6tDaFk/AyuiRqRSltNlXx539Ba/Perdl 0fzWb6JiPGLyJhyLA32yzM2QRQVo9tLyA+qSPEZeXNKL3CLDhh6UJ+pDyM38azR0 /00U3t79T7qKCM/zMfqi0BhS5jerYe2zbhlDM2Dw1OV5t44Xo0wO5env4q91MfME jMAVRKIuRvp0tleAbgvKv+36KWySB4wKnya/TadX8tS2Xdi95g8McYJAY3km4hwt KQDrJtFTGjW0ZrfF5Rmny2vQTxDnY0dQcWYAPIlX/4ubEYD5GJEy3nnwzp4knloO nSh34abdGJ6G11oej9qYOZxrCX+MyctJK3ekzqgODCmOYi9w2xhaiacQC79P23Nt tNfccxpnLADHRWkOmEHJfX3NWtG4uw6YkqHU+3dpnA25yW7vqqdOxQDp3zZA186T 95YR5yurx+IIGzfJI9e8RemEwRlODQir4Q9EEJFdaIebhkry8dIaEiaV0qQxzwXS 3Xweoe9EDw+7+7HVY6FAG/+1d6hgl/5zaIbJAAY0fUP/f5UTUMbucdotlNM8chZE N2mCqaGiQjvryuAwd6EieYgs7Mn+qwWS4CFxGjPUcaRKpLVV5Cfrn+TXjDufFJ5Q UeC2On2RtTyST7FxHku9 =WE/2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Hi Arno, I am also looking at your package and I see things I could learn from you especially in regards to git. When you mention technical problems, I wish you could be more specific. I'm only making my first steps in development for Debian so I shouldn't be arrogant. However, the package I made satisfies strictest lintian checks and perhaps complies with most other recommendations. It builds in pbuilder, etc. Elegance of get-orig-source may be arguably improved, but my package works. I don't quite see the point in merging something working into something what doesn't work, and not the other way. (With all due respect there are more than some minor things you didn't address i.e. your package is not usable yet even though you did a lot of work.) There are might be some people waiting for flachcache' availability in Debian, like myself, until two weeks ago, when I gave up waiting and started working on this package. For practical reasons giving up working package may be not the best option for people who might need it. Frankly I'm not sure what would be the best to do. Whatever we decide let's see what we can improve and how. Someone experienced need to review my package (and I already see a minor problem with obsolete watch file), but all required functionality is there and I believe it is ready for use. (As a matter of fact I'm using it at this very moment). Regards, Dmitry. On 18 September 2011 22:48, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18.09.2011 14:03, onlyjob wrote: No, I wasn't aware of yours... I reckon we've been working independently I just completed my own... There are definitely some similarities but also differences in the way we did it. I briefly looked at yours. It has some technical problems, but I can see some minor things I didn't address yet. In particular you made some preliminary man pages. If you want, I offer you to merge your additions to my package and successively maintain the package together with me. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOdei6AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtfe4QAMAk9kBITgViMK9rpNb3w6n3 ksuFnZp4EFhxa1EXfyVUdCOn6wWo/byo6tDaFk/AyuiRqRSltNlXx539Ba/Perdl 0fzWb6JiPGLyJhyLA32yzM2QRQVo9tLyA+qSPEZeXNKL3CLDhh6UJ+pDyM38azR0 /00U3t79T7qKCM/zMfqi0BhS5jerYe2zbhlDM2Dw1OV5t44Xo0wO5env4q91MfME jMAVRKIuRvp0tleAbgvKv+36KWySB4wKnya/TadX8tS2Xdi95g8McYJAY3km4hwt KQDrJtFTGjW0ZrfF5Rmny2vQTxDnY0dQcWYAPIlX/4ubEYD5GJEy3nnwzp4knloO nSh34abdGJ6G11oej9qYOZxrCX+MyctJK3ekzqgODCmOYi9w2xhaiacQC79P23Nt tNfccxpnLADHRWkOmEHJfX3NWtG4uw6YkqHU+3dpnA25yW7vqqdOxQDp3zZA186T 95YR5yurx+IIGzfJI9e8RemEwRlODQir4Q9EEJFdaIebhkry8dIaEiaV0qQxzwXS 3Xweoe9EDw+7+7HVY6FAG/+1d6hgl/5zaIbJAAY0fUP/f5UTUMbucdotlNM8chZE N2mCqaGiQjvryuAwd6EieYgs7Mn+qwWS4CFxGjPUcaRKpLVV5Cfrn+TXjDufFJ5Q UeC2On2RtTyST7FxHku9 =WE/2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Hi, No so long ago flashcache's master branch was updated for compatibility with Linux kernel 3.0 Recent package from http://mentors.debian.net works on 3.0.0-1-amd64 Regards, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27.07.2011 07:49, Liang Guo wrote: flashcache don't compatible with linux 3.0.0, do you have any solution for this? I haven't tried it with Linux 3.0 (yet), but as flashcache is under active development and it runs fine on rather recent kernels as well, this should not be a crucial problem. However thanks for your hint. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOL9C/AAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtx9MQAJu7p4Yo7y1MIzZL/gT3TAM7 Qepj44Xavjl360usLA7ZcQyPrKevxPLuIKJbAxAFHu4BqzzZP+BvmypmiwgiQsdN 85YlKMR+kN+k8kuEd/cYQ2bSYALQnzWvDSFgMz63lHCXatZXzZrtPOcKPIazWiFV 9Jm4+9isEy2BOf7yUQca+WoiCW7mnf0G0jzp/+MowxI+Xbqi8KcT+Z2GSmeY3Euj f2BObcjf1a7wGhrzEC70kMggbPVvD5kMzzTygNAprb6vIFPRt2/SX+npaIE1XQam L6jWesGfPy9DKRuzjcA+Oc0nE9HvxPrtuphs34/e53Jn4FWn/OeMnthECpDfSzEY uMmSL0+VKwpT0OLX/yPWu1hMvKIF7QDScbZ5bRFmRThimn5BdKknnc+cyM/uXQAa 6zO3lN3YZnINRMajl7AnpOdTuG2fsyz0DEuD7ZUo3Ac1tLEaIc5L+xUJK7sKsX6D Ir4ird8grIKdOgVMxXKfzppPM33XLN3bAyw/q2/35TUpaYoisT4icB2GftW+s6Fo Lw4tRAxMdF6oQi2t6DzovBk0azpUekf8i6CmCUyG0XKMGV5cPZrlOsTcnQzO5sT6 eHbvu5+a5DHYXmfrI5RYbTY2Iky+twLWoz/REB0XhxKWyxYCMyeFaFzGmgox0urC Wa7mPFQuP9V/VEeJwkVc =JIn3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Arno Töll deb...@toell.net * Package name: flashcache Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Mohan Srinivasan mo...@fb.com * URL : https://github.com/facebook/flashcache * License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: C Description : write-back block device cache for Linux Flashcache is a write-back block device cache for Linux. Using the Linux device mapper (DM) it provides an overlay mapper, to cache chunks of data on a high speed caching device like a solid-state drive for fast read access. . Flashcache supports FIFO and LRU cache sets, is configurable and error resistant. It comes with a DKMS kernel module and a corresponding user land for command and control. - -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOLq+aAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtCnEP/i+FjnyT7QB13uQ3NJuSRWDe t/z/cl9gGlbJXvQr8tLf/9HuwpDFWWAjESrPaYzgj5YwH/B/vb6s67BpL584duaW ChFDyzQ2d2INzZNSS1vNCJAStACPjmHnF3OkZTnYP1673zrvXRq6EA67sXOaB1qC kpQ4getqwWFbirD9x0m7qA80ntgiCEvArTDEuKR8wjcDyyUK+fbjh612dXEpSvlv /bIL0AeGxccZP2KnAnFz9PYeN6i6qBsMZLfb7zQSnzFszz0P7OtU88vC4z6cEbRc 8QpkDmUbC2Apsagt3CmIU9S91KGAmH4fnr7UnKyhpKvu/8QBry0X1hGBd5MjArfC mSBrTVUotxQvuDP38WVFX22RKiCbQg3Q+NK0El07iuJpYLiv3dqSP3hNZD3HjLQX dLJIPEi7Ri/9wJjLaTPlgk9keqfwdWX3s6Hth+1fxhA2Nwue21MsHJocPtBybGIS Nz3RAJl8743fNloZILyNZe9d3dDQavqxK/eHEjGl31ryJ8b0UbI034WtMzO7ndkD V4W7tZF+kOY/BEdmbDYfl0Nf/G+I6mieomX9xf8dFWIVK0/gisyasnLmYECgPUA7 f3C3/3eOEcPNp7AYiTR/QCKy237CHPzCLAUBsQx1O9NQ827e44NdsP0ObQADit0t LERl08N8EZAeCdOmhupi =1jzY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Arno Töll deb...@toell.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Arno Töll deb...@toell.net * Package name : flashcache Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Mohan Srinivasan mo...@fb.com * URL : https://github.com/facebook/flashcache * License : GPL-2 Programming Lang: C Description : write-back block device cache for Linux Flashcache is a write-back block device cache for Linux. Using the Linux device mapper (DM) it provides an overlay mapper, to cache chunks of data on a high speed caching device like a solid-state drive for fast read access. . Flashcache supports FIFO and LRU cache sets, is configurable and error resistant. It comes with a DKMS kernel module and a corresponding user land for command and control. (manual cc: as by policy, as busoni refused to talk to me before) flashcache don't compatible with linux 3.0.0, do you have any solution for this? Thanks, -- Liang Guo http://bluestone.cublog.cn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
