Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,

>Done.  I did a couple of nme runs in a sid chroot, and then fixed

>lintian errors.  It might be possible to compact the debian/copying
>stanza, but my goal was maximum correctness so I didn't take any
>risks.  Lintian said that copyright entries for config/* weren't
>necessary.  Is this true?  I removed them on the assumption that they
>were.


seems that config.* files, have a GPL-3+ while install-sh an MIT license (or
expat, didn't check).

I leave to you, adding them or not.
(I would even strip them from the sources, not sure why they have such a strict 
license)


>One more concern:  E - Package closes bugs in a wrong way.  Bug
>#801192 does not belong to this package.  I know this is a "teaching
>moment."  What is the correct way to tag #801192 (owned by
>btrfs-tools) so that it can be closed by btrfs-progs?  I'd like to
>send the email to control@ myself, and I suspect this needs to be done
>before you upload this package. ;-)


as you want, the bug will be closed anyway, so feel free to experiment with 
reassign tag, or
just don't care :)

additional review:
1) please run autoreconf
2) copyright missing:

question: what about using dpkg-divert?
Honestly I never tried it, so I don't know if it is useful, used in packaging 
or somewhere else
and I'm too lazy to check it by myself :p

https://codesearch.debian.net/results/dpkg-divert/page_0
seems somebody is using it out there

also, can you please fix the lintian stuff too?
talking about:

W dbg-package-missing-depends
btrfs-tools-dbg <-- not sure if worth a fix
I duplicate-long-description
btrfs-tools btrfs-tools-dbg
I duplicate-short-description
btrfs-tools btrfs-tools-dbg

thanks!

Gianfranco
(I think about putting the package in deferred/15, to leave xnox time to review 
it too)

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Nicholas D Steeves]

On 9 May 2016 at 13:18, Gianfranco Costamagna  wrote:
>>Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848
>>"as an RC bug on the package".
>
> I have reassigned it to ftpmasters, I don't think there is need to wait for
> the maintainer opinion, this is a binary without source.

Thank you.

>>I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing the MIT/X11 license
>>issue for config/install-sh.  In the first run I kept the existing
>>GPL-2+ designations; wc -l returned 212 lines.  For the second run I
>>changed most instances of GPL-2+ to GPL-2; wc -l returned 126.  Based
>>on this, and the fact that the official btrfs-progs*/COPYING file
>>states:
>
> I see README.md saying this is GPL-2, so you might want to change to GPL-2
> and list all the GPL-2+ files explicitly.

Done.  I did a couple of nme runs in a sid chroot, and then fixed
lintian errors.  It might be possible to compact the debian/copying
stanza, but my goal was maximum correctness so I didn't take any
risks.  Lintian said that copyright entries for config/* weren't
necessary.  Is this true?  I removed them on the assumption that they
were.

>>Thank you for notifying me of this Gianfranco.  It also affects>oldstable and
>>stable.  Is this an RC/serious level bug for all affected versions?
>
> BTW this might be RC, but I'm not sure it is worth fixing it in stable.
>
> I'll wait for some more appropriate answer here maybe :)

Ok, I'll wait too. :-)

Updated package has been uploaded to the same location.  If
successfully completing a license review/update isn't on a
debian-mentorship checklist, then it really ought to be!  Thank you
for the opportunity to learn something of fundamental importance to
the Debian-way of doing things.

One more concern:  E - Package closes bugs in a wrong way.  Bug
#801192 does not belong to this package.  I know this is a "teaching
moment."  What is the correct way to tag #801192 (owned by
btrfs-tools) so that it can be closed by btrfs-progs?  I'd like to
send the email to control@ myself, and I suspect this needs to be done
before you upload this package. ;-)

Cheers,
Nicholas

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,




>Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848
>"as an RC bug on the package".


I have reassigned it to ftpmasters, I don't think there is need to wait for
the maintainer opinion, this is a binary without source.
>I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing the MIT/X11 license
>issue for config/install-sh.  In the first run I kept the existing
>GPL-2+ designations; wc -l returned 212 lines.  For the second run I
>changed most instances of GPL-2+ to GPL-2; wc -l returned 126.  Based
>on this, and the fact that the official btrfs-progs*/COPYING file
>states:


I see README.md saying this is GPL-2, so you might want to change to GPL-2
and list all the GPL-2+ files explicitly.


>Thank you for notifying me of this Gianfranco.  It also affects>oldstable and 
>stable.  Is this an RC/serious level bug for all
>affected versions?  I will open the bug for this once I've patched all
>affected versions, since it's something I'm now already working on :-)
>Might as well fix them all at the same time, right!  Please confirm
>that I'm not mistaken in my conclusions regarding the licensing of
>this package.


I think you are right, but please note that you should mention all
the GPL-2+ files too.

BTW this might be RC, but I'm not sure it is worth fixing it in stable.

I'll wait for some more appropriate answer here maybe :)

G.

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Nicholas D Steeves]

On 9 May 2016 at 04:31, Gianfranco Costamagna  wrote:
>>Waiting for his reply.
>
>
> this seems the most important bit, I would appreciate you opening a bug 
> report against
> the package (severity:important),  explaining why you want a version in 
> experimental,
> leaving xnox the time to answer properly, and don't forget to propose 
> yourself as
> comaintainer.

Ok, I'll do this when this package is ready to upload.

>>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.
>
>
> ok, so please ask ftpmasters to remove it, otherwise the old source package 
> will still be in the archive.
> (and the old binary too)
>

Per https://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals , I filed Bug #823848
"as an RC bug on the package".

>>What is the convenience script used to do copyright review?  :-)  I'll
>>fix these in my next upload.
>
>
> not sure, maybe "cme fix" can work, or license-reconsile, even if I usually 
> look at the diff between the
> current version in archive and the version that I have to sponsor.

I did two runs of license-reconsile, after fixing the MIT/X11 license
issue for config/install-sh.  In the first run I kept the existing
GPL-2+ designations; wc -l returned 212 lines.  For the second run I
changed most instances of GPL-2+ to GPL-2; wc -l returned 126.  Based
on this, and the fact that the official btrfs-progs*/COPYING file
states:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   Version 2, June 1991

I believe this package was wrongly designated as GPL-2+ in
debian/copyright quite some time ago...  I've attached the output of
those license-reconsile runs.

Thank you for notifying me of this Gianfranco.  It also affects
oldstable and stable.  Is this an RC/serious level bug for all
affected versions?  I will open the bug for this once I've patched all
affected versions, since it's something I'm now already working on :-)
 Might as well fix them all at the same time, right!  Please confirm
that I'm not mistaken in my conclusions regarding the licensing of
this package.

Kind regards,
Nicholas


with_GPL2.xz
Description: application/xz


with_GPL2+.xz
Description: application/xz

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi Nicholas,


>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?


well, it makes sense this way

>Waiting for his reply.


this seems the most important bit, I would appreciate you opening a bug report 
against
the package (severity:important),  explaining why you want a version in 
experimental, leaving xnox
the time to answer properly, and don't forget to propose yourself as 
comaintainer.
>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.


ok, so please ask ftpmasters to remove it, otherwise the old source package 
will still be in the archive.
(and the old binary too)

>What is the convenience script used to do copyright review?  :-)  I'll
>fix these in my next upload.


not sure, maybe "cme fix" can work, or license-reconsile, even if I usually 
look at the diff between the
current version in archive and the version that I have to sponsor.

>Thanks again for the review!


thanks to you, waiting for your feedback then :)

Gianfranco

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Hi Gianfranco

On 6 May 2016 at 04:32, Gianfranco Costamagna  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

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

control: tags -1 moreinfo
control: owner -1 !

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.

BTW, please ask xnox to comaintain the package, if you really want to help in 
packaging it.




NMUs are not used to upload regardless of the maintainer opinion on a daily 
basis, even if xnox in particular
welcomes them :)

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?



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+


e.g. 
mds-inspect-dump-super.*
cmds-inspect-dump-tree.*
cmds-inspect-tree-stats.*

some Red Hat copyrights

and probably more.


cheers,

Gianfranco



Il Giovedì 5 Maggio 2016 5:03, Nicholas D Steeves  ha 
scritto:
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "btrfs-progs".  I've read
upstream reports of regressions in the 4.5.x series that were solved
by downgrading to 4.4.x, so I believe that it is most appropriate to
upload to experimental at this time.  When the reports of regressions
are solved in a future upstream version I will update this package and
request an upload to sid.

Package name: btrfs-progs
Version: 4.5.2-0.1~exp1
Section: admin

It builds these binary packages:

btrfs-progs - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities
btrfs-progs-dbg - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (debug)
btrfs-progs-udeb - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (udeb) (udeb)
btrfs-tools - transitional dummy package
btrfs-tools-dbg - transitional dummy package

To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/btrfs-progs

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.5.2-0.1~exp1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * New upstream release.
  * Add upstream changelog.
  * Update standards version to 3.9.8 (no changes needed).
  * Add btrfs-convert support to initramfs (Closes: #801192).
  * Divert btrfs-convert to a wrapper script that warns against its use.

Thanks again!
Nicholas

Bug#823474: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.2-0.1~exp1

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "btrfs-progs".  I've read
upstream reports of regressions in the 4.5.x series that were solved
by downgrading to 4.4.x, so I believe that it is most appropriate to
upload to experimental at this time.  When the reports of regressions
are solved in a future upstream version I will update this package and
request an upload to sid.

Package name: btrfs-progs
Version: 4.5.2-0.1~exp1
Section: admin

It builds these binary packages:

btrfs-progs - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities
btrfs-progs-dbg - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (debug)
btrfs-progs-udeb - Checksumming Copy on Write Filesystem utilities (udeb) (udeb)
btrfs-tools - transitional dummy package
btrfs-tools-dbg - transitional dummy package

To access further information about this package, please visit the
following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/btrfs-progs

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

dget -x 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.5.2-0.1~exp1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * New upstream release.
  * Add upstream changelog.
  * Update standards version to 3.9.8 (no changes needed).
  * Add btrfs-convert support to initramfs (Closes: #801192).
  * Divert btrfs-convert to a wrapper script that warns against its use.

Thanks again!
Nicholas