Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On 25/06/12 02:14, Phillip Susi wrote: Generally, Debian packages stable releases of software. At the current state is this package ready for unstable or better suited for experimental? Has it seen wider testing / user base? (e.g. did you post an announce to ext-dev mailing lists? LWN.net? similar sites). This is a bit of chicken and egg problem: no package no user base, no user base no package. I believe that inclusion of this package in Debian will increase testing. Do you believe this should be uploaded into experimental or unstable? Exactly. I was planning on announcing it once it's in the archive to call for testing and feedback. The usage of experimental is still unclear to me. If it is in unstable then it will be synced to Ubuntu quantal as well, though I suppose Ubuntu users can get it from my ppa if it is holding in experimental for now. Your decision whether you upload into Debian experimental or unstable should not be affected by other derivative distribution policies. You can request syncing packages from experimental into Ubuntu, but the package will still land in Ubuntu's new queue and require verification. You can always provide backports/ppa/etc regardless of the package status in the archive. Given above, unstable or experimental? -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On 6/25/2012 4:25 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: Your decision whether you upload into Debian experimental or unstable should not be affected by other derivative distribution policies. You can request syncing packages from experimental into Ubuntu, but the package will still land in Ubuntu's new queue and require verification. You can always provide backports/ppa/etc regardless of the package status in the archive. Given above, unstable or experimental? I'm still not sure why one would want to use experimental instead of unstable. It seems like it's just one more hoop people have to jump through ( adding one more entry to sources.list ) to use the package. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't see the benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't experimental for testing a one off hack you want a few specific people to try, but you know it would cause breakage for other users and so would not be appropriate for unstable? If that's the case, then I'd say unstable is the place to go. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On 25/06/12 14:34, Phillip Susi wrote: On 6/25/2012 4:25 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: Your decision whether you upload into Debian experimental or unstable should not be affected by other derivative distribution policies. You can request syncing packages from experimental into Ubuntu, but the package will still land in Ubuntu's new queue and require verification. You can always provide backports/ppa/etc regardless of the package status in the archive. Given above, unstable or experimental? I'm still not sure why one would want to use experimental instead of unstable. It seems like it's just one more hoop people have to jump through ( adding one more entry to sources.list ) to use the package. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't see the benefit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't experimental for testing a one off hack you want a few specific people to try, but you know it would cause breakage for other users and so would not be appropriate for unstable? If that's the case, then I'd say unstable is the place to go. Depends. Generally Experimental is what you make of it. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianExperimental Many new upstream releases of large packages are cured in experimental first, because it introduces packages to the archive and allows using bts to file and track bugs. Many large libraries and softwares are packaged in experimental first, e.g.: gnome, kde stacks, gcc toolchain, minor libraries SONAME bumps. To ease testing against other packages (e.g. ftbfs in experimental with libfoo+1) and ease testing the package by experienced developers and users. Uploading to experimental, means that a package will not be a candidate for automatic transition into a stable release. This can also be achieved by opening a sticky RC bug. Don't close, until maintainer is happy for the package to transition. When the archive is frozen, experimental is used to package all new software, to allow unstable-testing uploads transitions without going through testing-proposed-updates. To sum up, experimental is a tool for a maintainer to govern the per-package release cycle on top of debian. I can see how you want it in unstable, and I am fine to sponsor it there. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 05:03:39PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package e2defrag. This package used to be known as defrag, and was removed from the archive back in 2008 due to being abandoned by its authors and rotting for many years. I have taken over maintainership of it and would like to get it back into the archive. Have you taken over upstream maintainership as well? This was always a tool which needed to be used with great caution, and was removed for good reason. Is this safe to use with all ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems? Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linuxhttp://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools `-GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/24/2012 12:00 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: Have you taken over upstream maintainership as well? Yes. This was always a tool which needed to be used with great caution, and was removed for good reason. Is this safe to use with all ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems? Obviously there may be bugs, and a crash in mid defrag likely will leave you with a hopelessly corrupted fs, but yes, it is working with all modern ext4 features. I'm kicking around an idea to log enough information to allow for recovery after a crash, but this would significantly slow down the process. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP51z7AAoJEJrBOlT6nu75OJwH+wc4UymOtguI9eVLW0og6Mt0 j0FfKeKI9j3wluCbMDXR1bQM/bXN9WkKS1DZqH7KDGbSpGxd3zZ9GYJxss+LFg8r v3uGBkY/a/lSnJHSo0qqRTcveGAo1NQzc2+YXEfikxhU2xFW0T+ffNdTXnGmOD8k 1urP2BQXHG6qfyYxAkHQ3J2GUGi8K9IOtupKUe8/KxeuujpZW/17M4ixR6LwmNpZ 65eCnmF+Cn9KXu2PmMdvsNrdtQ86suNjbvW+3mR1cdurlo9wUNh+n/+4/4SKBJ5L i1HKww01CxOXCUIy0i2sJSaQiryqmpKMAFuDQuxrqPrzTwk/Ri8Lf6BBNcOBsCY= =cmnX -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#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:13:15 +0300, Phillip Susi ps...@ubuntu.com wrote: Could you provide more details? Also an e2image of the fs ( preferably before defrag ) would be helpful in debugging. I wasn't very cautious to preserve any data before or after the defrag, even more I've killed the file system already. Sorry, I won't be useful in debugging. -- Eugene Paskevich | *==)--- | Plug me into eug...@raptor.kiev.ua| ---(==* | The Matrix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:00:10 +0300, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote: This was always a tool which needed to be used with great caution, and was removed for good reason. Is this safe to use with all ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems? Just my 2 cents... Tried to use it on my non-critical ext3 FS. The FS structure was corrupted, fsck recovered some data (about 1%) into lost+found, 80% of data is lost w/o any trace. Well, it's up to mentors to decide, but I'd refrain from uploading this package. -- Eugene Paskevich | *==)--- | Plug me into eug...@raptor.kiev.ua| ---(==* | The Matrix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/24/2012 05:25 PM, Eugene Paskevich wrote: I wasn't very cautious to preserve any data before or after the defrag, even more I've killed the file system already. Sorry, I won't be useful in debugging. How about at least an overview of the complaints that e2fsck had? And I assume that e2defrag finished without error? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP54s1AAoJEJrBOlT6nu75eL0IAI6pxvSfmtonj3VzRws815Ve R0wXJ6hdskEToib+Kqi6X1MHzzA+91KqDbyE2LkEzHW3Qx1qRwZgXqJpkhMACPoN JyEBhBv4NtEOOuW0xJJvo7OlQh6rbP4VxLIrU4kfXgzzAZcM9s9yVVDxb3h8nbp7 YjPnMm77hFpzHfDLxJ7h3TtsIH/JVe90AAMnzwlGfrVcLtDiRXahQczDHCBMMXjg GkBTFCSspY2YNr7wuguMpsCYWp8bE38BVY77NHlREG0n2INLgJ8Xhxx05zP7Vdcg uYF/T8gy9nKPLknXCtiC/nXCFOcwttUWXHwMAVx0QgPg3NJqnr5WlxhdUxmq62w= =2HOh -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#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/24/2012 04:36 PM, Eugene Paskevich wrote: Just my 2 cents... Tried to use it on my non-critical ext3 FS. The FS structure was corrupted, fsck recovered some data (about 1%) into lost+found, 80% of data is lost w/o any trace. Well, it's up to mentors to decide, but I'd refrain from uploading this package. Could you provide more details? Also an e2image of the fs ( preferably before defrag ) would be helpful in debugging. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP54LrAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75mzwH/iERCrqHhrbFmE2T0Kc5w4oV EjkCDomGf2ifEhmm533rc3eX1ANY08SbUEXzjui+ms70BapxRkdwZAwryXad52Io XysD47ycJhYAtGPHIAmJYlOk26y9pLsVnn48T9xTYldhlE+T4KsvU0XK4UewKZA4 xC3EibbM2/daYfBbqyhWvJ8Wdx69X5wxW+SEvoH5nvmcs7HWxQFi7Ev5r44jqSrn GGkV82BGr+gFSkOgDU9ohB2iEnEf0PLeap0kqmw22/TnhkI/ecSY0LQg6gzVmKrX tbIXfTNPMRQlf8PM0nY3AwbcCoL7hnm8PEPvqoR9+7RCdFi/QnfSOHf2Uo6zJwY= =Ds1O -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#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:48:37 +0300, Phillip Susi ps...@ubuntu.com wrote: How about at least an overview of the complaints that e2fsck had? And I It's output went off the scroll buffer, sorry. But it was quite a long list. assume that e2defrag finished without error? Yes, at least I saw nothing in the console when came back to it. -- Eugene Paskevich | *==)--- | Plug me into eug...@raptor.kiev.ua| ---(==* | The Matrix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 02:31:23PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: On 06/24/2012 12:00 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: This was always a tool which needed to be used with great caution, and was removed for good reason. Is this safe to use with all ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems? Obviously there may be bugs, and a crash in mid defrag likely will leave you with a hopelessly corrupted fs, but yes, it is working with all modern ext4 features. I'm kicking around an idea to log enough information to allow for recovery after a crash, but this would significantly slow down the process. There is already an ext4-specific (depends on creation with -O extent) e4defrag tool in e2fsprogs since 1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1. Is there a reason you would use one tool over the other? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
Dear Phillip, Thank you for replying to all the comments and resolving issues quickly. I haven't checked them yet, but I am sure they are fine now. See further comments: On 24/06/12 03:50, Phillip Susi wrote: Bugs there were closed due to removing the package from the archive should be still addressed. As bugs was the reason to remove the package from the archive in particular: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=396449 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401622 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324555 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=389231 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=169584 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=235498 If these are fixed, mention (Closes: #ZZZYYY) in the debian/changelog. They are already all closed and archived. Let me rephrase. Is upstream aware of the above bugs which affected the last version of defrag in debian, which were not fixed in the upstream code? (the bugs were closed and archived, simply because the package was removed from debian, not because they were fixed upstream) If upstream is aware of the above bugs, have they been fixed or tracked in the upstream bug tracker/TODO items/etc? (I see now that you have clarified that the ext3/4 support was added, but it was not obvious to me simply by reading the debian/changelog) == Readiness == Generally, Debian packages stable releases of software. At the current state is this package ready for unstable or better suited for experimental? Has it seen wider testing / user base? (e.g. did you post an announce to ext-dev mailing lists? LWN.net? similar sites). This is a bit of chicken and egg problem: no package no user base, no user base no package. I believe that inclusion of this package in Debian will increase testing. Do you believe this should be uploaded into experimental or unstable? -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
On 24/06/12 23:58, Nicholas Breen wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 02:31:23PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: On 06/24/2012 12:00 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: This was always a tool which needed to be used with great caution, and was removed for good reason. Is this safe to use with all ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems? Obviously there may be bugs, and a crash in mid defrag likely will leave you with a hopelessly corrupted fs, but yes, it is working with all modern ext4 features. I'm kicking around an idea to log enough information to allow for recovery after a crash, but this would significantly slow down the process. There is already an ext4-specific (depends on creation with -O extent) e4defrag tool in e2fsprogs since 1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1. Is there a reason you would use one tool over the other? The obvious, you would use e2defrag for ext2, ext3 ext4 without extents. But the question which one to prefer for ext4 with extents still stands. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/24/2012 07:40 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: Let me rephrase. Is upstream aware of the above bugs which affected the last version of defrag in debian, which were not fixed in the upstream code? They appear to fall into 3 categories: ftbs, upstream has abandoned, and doesn't work on ext3/4. I have fixed the third, and obviously the first two no longer hold. Generally, Debian packages stable releases of software. At the current state is this package ready for unstable or better suited for experimental? Has it seen wider testing / user base? (e.g. did you post an announce to ext-dev mailing lists? LWN.net? similar sites). This is a bit of chicken and egg problem: no package no user base, no user base no package. I believe that inclusion of this package in Debian will increase testing. Do you believe this should be uploaded into experimental or unstable? Exactly. I was planning on announcing it once it's in the archive to call for testing and feedback. The usage of experimental is still unclear to me. If it is in unstable then it will be synced to Ubuntu quantal as well, though I suppose Ubuntu users can get it from my ppa if it is holding in experimental for now. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP57uHAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75g3cIALHX+eSZU9fu36oTQIrf5Mt0 eUkr/mGwKvyJpTu+Vd7I8fd02lEXZxYVOU4FZiBa0s+mWR8M6Gjjs0PAmPZTamwm rPj6Ss2xaV+aRCxxLxqcDBasIprKopikqq288A8plKQEXV5mLAOhmFI+I6s4PT3b 108svDCqZ8x1eFzWic1px+J2iQGBjQef4DUIeOGZ50GFwnoup3Fq4pAf8FCiCdfZ KKW3KvOgY0DF6bpp9ZyoscJ6rhqIvDQDmguYbghUO3ZHAuE9nie5vm8dyPXIm6CL AuraSud1wmYugzBO1SUqY9RyiU3ZUj0eN+9KUAU3+qsOBf/YHWu8s6kIrC4t1nM= =ioI4 -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#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/24/2012 07:41 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: There is already an ext4-specific (depends on creation with -O extent) e4defrag tool in e2fsprogs since 1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1. Is there a reason you would use one tool over the other? The obvious, you would use e2defrag for ext2, ext3 ext4 without extents. But the question which one to prefer for ext4 with extents still stands. I have yet to try e4defrag, but my understanding is that it essentially works like most of the other available defrag programs such as shake: it finds fragmented files, and copies them, hoping that when the copy is written, the kernel allocator will manage to make the new copy contiguous. It therefore does nothing for free space fragmentation or keeping similar files in a similar location on disk. e2defrag also has a feature where you can specify particular inodes be given priority over others. This allows you to take files that are needed during boot, and pack them all together at the start of the disk so they can be read rapidly by ureadahead, which gives significant boot time improvement. Due to the ability to perform online defrag, and safety in the face of a crash, I imagine that many users will prefer e4defrag. I hope that having e2defrag still alive and working will provide a good comparison and spur on improvement in e4defrag. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP573bAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75KUMH/ROIvbrOhSR0FVq29/i69bmy z2nKBevfXRTHA2TLb4LvsnVxa7UMUgSpJpwIhpQreH0FCTBFw7CfpkAiq7yjbbnx Qs1Ad1WLUe3Wzjh/N9HWn5yqPxRhwi8s3RrHTBokhD2RBbZt7Xc04dyRJ+wDJ19/ koB9X+/Ngzfuuhlvnt8o5DCxK6NfObbKRKD+wyPFfYSG/6rzW6B+VQC3VF/DRNTM R+AGv4lp69D6N+6cJohUx2zOsR4EcWWm74pLqpQ7shZqFOgadyyiTdNdyoED/2Uh 0OawawwJVeLp8AjYDdB35nbObKNNe89oftSjWn1KK+gcIV5AwsEn4tibFZe7ZfY= =HF93 -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#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package e2defrag. This package used to be known as defrag, and was removed from the archive back in 2008 due to being abandoned by its authors and rotting for many years. I have taken over maintainership of it and would like to get it back into the archive. * Package name: e2defrag Version : 0.80 Upstream Author : Phillip Susi ps...@ubuntu.com * URL : http://launchpad.net/e2defrag * License : GPL Section : admin It builds those binary packages: e2defrag - ext[234] filesystem defragmenter To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: http://mentors.debian.net/package/e2defrag Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/e/e2defrag/e2defrag_0.80.dsc Regards, Phillip Susi -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP5i8rAAoJEJrBOlT6nu7543EH/1b/Uxnk0WTdlbM4x77+BL2g JwxTTJ90LjqAyf1v5LAOTldik+F9CGDq6Ezz9ewDCMPORbqTg/e7IjQKvXEZ5XBx kKeYY1OXKTiHCZ2oteYACIRN9SqyqYgCI7r15bJ/t8NbttX0qq+MtMzJ/3ZN1Qoh G2pTZGUONHeIanMwL2y5DnkuglujvfbE5B1DHn3NneKcDz/lZU7FT8hfvED4nn7g 9szR0OEl7Ev0qTGlvXP+HlF8nAFmyNFpipxDAxCIcIgy3mAsDmBNBunOPBOxzZaG Obsb4CBlSLNIUSEnOQyiHRkGEld56jQkK3orxqq8u8MO4REkHuWYr+xE11xRdFU= =+UkM -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#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
Hello Phillip, Thanks for picking up this package. Here are some comments == ITP == The ITP was not sent to the debian-devel mailing list. Please use report-bug in the future or add pseudo-header: X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org Please forward your ITP to debian-devel. == bugs == Bugs there were closed due to removing the package from the archive should be still addressed. As bugs was the reason to remove the package from the archive in particular: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=396449 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401622 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324555 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=389231 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=169584 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=235498 If these are fixed, mention (Closes: #ZZZYYY) in the debian/changelog. == debian packaging == Fix the following notices from lintian: P: e2defrag source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 W: e2defrag source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.2 (current is 3.9.3) W: e2defrag: script-with-language-extension usr/sbin/dump2inodes.py I: e2defrag: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man8/e2defrag.8.gz:123 I: e2defrag: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man8/e2defrag.8.gz:129 I: e2defrag: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man8/e2defrag.8.gz ommitted omitted I: e2defrag: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man8/frag.8.gz:69 W: e2defrag: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/dump2inodes.py E: e2defrag: python-script-but-no-python-dep usr/sbin/dump2inodes.py You can get more information about them by running lintian with: lintian -i -I --pedantic -E -v *.changes If you manage packaging in a VCS, please add Vcs-* headers. == source format == Usually upstream makes tarball releases, which then can be packaged. Please do, and use 3.0 (quilt) source format. Bzr-builddeb has support for split mode: http://jameswestby.net/bzr/builddeb/user_manual/split.html Or you can use: bzr export -rtag:0.80 --per-file-timestamps e2defrag-0.80.tar.gz To create a tarball which will always have the same checksum. I would like you to consider stop using native package version and instead make 0.80 release and package it as 0.80-1. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#678705: RFS: e2defrag/0.80 ITP: #678598
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/23/2012 07:27 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: The ITP was not sent to the debian-devel mailing list. Please use report-bug in the future or add pseudo-header: X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org Please forward your ITP to debian-devel. reportbug was unable to connect to the debian smtp server, so I had to send it manually. I will resend to debian-devel now. Bugs there were closed due to removing the package from the archive should be still addressed. As bugs was the reason to remove the package from the archive in particular: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=396449 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401622 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=324555 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=389231 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=169584 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=235498 If these are fixed, mention (Closes: #ZZZYYY) in the debian/changelog. They are already all closed and archived. Fix the following notices from lintian: P: e2defrag source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5 W: e2defrag source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.9.2 (current is 3.9.3) W: e2defrag: script-with-language-extension usr/sbin/dump2inodes.py Fixed. I: e2defrag: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man8/e2defrag.8.gz:123 I: e2defrag: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man8/e2defrag.8.gz:129 These actually are minus signs; the warnings are wrong. I also don't get these when building locally. I: e2defrag: spelling-error-in-manpage usr/share/man/man8/e2defrag.8.gz ommitted omitted Fixed. I: e2defrag: hyphen-used-as-minus-sign usr/share/man/man8/frag.8.gz:69 W: e2defrag: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/dump2inodes.py Oops, I added a man page for that last night, but seems I forgot to add it to the list in the makefile to install. Fixed. E: e2defrag: python-script-but-no-python-dep usr/sbin/dump2inodes.py This script is kind of an add on hack for integration with ureadahead, so python isn't actually required for the core functionality. If you manage packaging in a VCS, please add Vcs-* headers. Fixed. == source format == Usually upstream makes tarball releases, which then can be packaged. Please do, and use 3.0 (quilt) source format. Fixed. Bzr-builddeb has support for split mode: http://jameswestby.net/bzr/builddeb/user_manual/split.html Or you can use: bzr export -rtag:0.80 --per-file-timestamps e2defrag-0.80.tar.gz To create a tarball which will always have the same checksum. I would like you to consider stop using native package version and instead make 0.80 release and package it as 0.80-1. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP5oB9AAoJEJrBOlT6nu75tuoH/064HSNcVwlEWRfy9y147kA2 6u1OJif8wjiawXre/Z5XuttGj2UVZqt1O2CWHkNOIHxii9WlHCmBuHqUcdR/oUBd vhxDfbFCtZsZfdsIbMa+0rhiUfO/1IiMD/dQ++QOPRW09PhX2VXkKMrP7tJLV+Oo Al+oUOAQ0JnR1LhWoQ39NtDcQEoWX5tLqUqkwx1bi30QwCkjwoaYL55UsFigB6J4 fURvJHLkppycNcsQifYUyEHJm1MNchdZ65Y7n88wF4845DXDTcIPbRDI7qwoWxj+ gB1Lh4sizSmrNKOdPkoZVIFA1e4wRZRulkgy2xuMveCCMFnu/0KNpwREok3euYQ= =xUF/ -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
