Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Barry Arndt]

Mentors,

I am picking up work on this package.  I'm working through the issues 
already outlined to make sure they are resolved and all questions are 
answered.

Once that is done, I'll refresh the package if necessary, and inform of 
the updates and answered questions.

Thanks.

Barry Arndt
IBM Linux Technology Center - Linux on Power

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi,

We've made a new upload. Please, consider this .dsc -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2560-1.dsc



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi,


The latest version of this package fix the issues pointed in the 
previous comment, as well as other points made in mentors.debian.


Here is the link to the .dsc -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2554-1.dsc



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo

src/build/install/resources/{cap,ptd}.gz are prebuilt binaries too.
If you remove them too, and are sure there is no other such things, you
may change the package bacn to main from non-free.

cxlffdc won't work on Debian properly, I suspect there are other things
like it, as you don't seem to be testing this on Debian (are you?).

I don't intend to sponsor this, mainly due to complicated maintainer
scripts, clearly existing need to review all the shipped scripts and
inability to properly test the package, so maybe someone else will
continue with reviewing.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:50:49PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
>   The firmware and prebuilt binaries are covered under the
>click-to-accept license.
So it's not permitted for Debian to distribute them?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:03:02PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
> 1. cxlflash depends upon libudev1 and libcxl1 for their runtime shared 
> libraries
${shlibs:Depends} already covers that and does the job better.

> 2. The include files were modified, so no copyright update appears to be 
> required
Then you've missed parts of the discussion.
I've asked to document the licenses for the sourceless binaries you are
shipping, including the firmware and the prebuilt executables.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi,


This upload has the changes pointed by Michael in the previous message 
-> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2533-1.dsc



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Michael P Vageline]

hi,
   The next RFS update has these chgs:

1. cxlflash depends upon libudev1 and libcxl1 for their runtime shared libraries
2. The include files were modified, so no copyright update appears to be 
required
3. the code is changed to use dh_systemd
4. the license files are moved back to /usr/share/cxlflash/license, and are not 
compressed now

Regards,
 Mike Vageline
 IBM POWER Software Development

-Andrey Rahmatullin <w...@debian.org> wrote: -
To: Rodrigo <rosat...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Andrey Rahmatullin <w...@debian.org>
Date: 08/28/2017 08:46AM
Cc: 870...@bugs.debian.org, Michael P Vageline <mpvag...@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for 
NoSQL Software Libraries

Why does cxlflash explicitly depend on libudev1, libcxl1?
debian/copyright is still not updated.
Why do the maintainer scripts use deb-systemd-helper directly and how does
that work with code aded by dh_systemd_*?
I think the licenses shouldn't be in /usr/share/doc but in
/usr/share/pkgname as they are not documentation for this package. Also,
they are compressed, are you sure this will work?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


[attachment "signature.asc" removed by Michael P Vageline/Austin/IBM]

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Why does cxlflash explicitly depend on libudev1, libcxl1?
debian/copyright is still not updated.
Why do the maintainer scripts use deb-systemd-helper directly and how does
that work with code aded by dh_systemd_*?
I think the licenses shouldn't be in /usr/share/doc but in
/usr/share/pkgname as they are not documentation for this package. Also,
they are compressed, are you sure this will work?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Andrey,


> > There are a lot of errors in the install_root_man1 target.
> > There are warnings about unused ${perl:Depends}.
>
>
> We've made changes that should fix these errors. Could you check it,
> please? ->
> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2528-1.dsc



We uploaded the package to mentors.debian again. Please, consider this 
link now -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2531-1.dsc



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Andrey,


> There are a lot of errors in the install_root_man1 target.
> There are warnings about unused ${perl:Depends}.


We've made changes that should fix these errors. Could you check it, 
please? -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2528-1.dsc


Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:19:29AM -0300, Rodrigo wrote:
> >> I was able to build from the link I sent to you using 'debuild -us -uc'.
> >> Could you share with us what's the error, please?
> > cflash_block_kern_mc.c:59:10: fatal error: scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h: No such
> file or directory
> 
> We made some changes that fix this build problem. Here is the link to the
> .dsc -> 
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2524-1.dsc
There are a lot of errors in the install_root_man1 target.
There are warnings about unused ${perl:Depends}.

> Other doubt about the 'non-free' section: after read the link you shared
> with us, it says to send an email to  explaining
> why the package can be auto-built. So, should we send this email right now
> or wait for this process of sponsorship?
After the package is sponsored.
By the way, even if you ship non-free binaries you still need to describe
their copyrights and licenses.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Andrey,

>> I was able to build from the link I sent to you using 'debuild -us -uc'.
>> Could you share with us what's the error, please?
> cflash_block_kern_mc.c:59:10: fatal error: scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h: No 
such file or directory


We made some changes that fix this build problem. Here is the link to 
the .dsc -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2524-1.dsc


Other doubt about the 'non-free' section: after read the link you shared 
with us, it says to send an email to  
explaining why the package can be auto-built. So, should we send this 
email right now or wait for this process of sponsorship?



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 07:23:33PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
> Your build error is from missing this file:
> > dpkg -S /usr/include/scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h
> linux-libc-dev: /usr/include/scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h
> 
> Are you building using a kernel that is shipped with 17.10?
17.10 of what? Your package must be built in the current Debian unstable.

> > Why do both packages depend on some -dev packages?
> >   *fixed
> Why does cxlflash depend on some -dev packages then?
> 
>   *Build-Depends: needs -dev for header files to build
>Depends: needs the runtime pkg for the shared libs
-dev is not a runtime pkg.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Michael P Vageline]

hi,

Your build error is from missing this file:
> dpkg -S /usr/include/scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h
linux-libc-dev: /usr/include/scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h

Are you building using a kernel that is shipped with 17.10?


> Why do both packages depend on some -dev packages?
>   *fixed
Why does cxlflash depend on some -dev packages then?

  *Build-Depends: needs -dev for header files to build
   Depends: needs the runtime pkg for the shared libs

Regards,
 Mike Vageline
 IBM POWER Software Development

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:56:59PM -0300, Rodrigo wrote:
> I was able to build from the link I sent to you using 'debuild -us -uc'.
> Could you share with us what's the error, please?
cflash_block_kern_mc.c:59:10: fatal error: scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h: No such file 
or directory

Besides, you should always build in a clean sid chroot and not just with
debuild.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi,

> I don't really see any changes and also you haven't answered many of 
my questions.

> Also, the package doesn't build. Please don't upload packages you haven't
> tested.

I was able to build from the link I sent to you using 'debuild -us -uc'. 
Could you share with us what's the error, please?



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:36:21PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
> Why do both packages depend on some -dev packages?
>   *fixed
Why does cxlflash depend on some -dev packages then?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Michael P Vageline]

hi,
  These are all fixed in the latest... once you get the correct updates.

I: cxlflash: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/man/man3/
  *fixed

I: cxlflash: unused-override hardening-no-fortify-functions
  *fixed

/usr/share/cxlflash/readme.txt and maybe some other files should be
shipped in /usr/share/doc/cxlflash/
  *fixed

examples should be shipped in /usr/share/doc/cxlflash/examples/
  *fixed

Why do both packages depend on some -dev packages?
  *fixed

Checking the group presence with `grep cxl /etc/passwd` is very wrong.
  *fixed

Regards,
 Mike Vageline
 IBM POWER Software Development

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Michael P Vageline]

hi,

>Do I understand correctly that postinst touches /opt? Including /opt/bin?
>I'm not sure that's a good idea even if that's only for migration (and
>it's definitely a bad idea if anything in /opt is created on a clean
>system).
>As the maintainer script logic is very complex, please carefully test your
>packgages with piuparts(1).
> 
>  *the old packages were installed into /opt, so postinst sets up symbolic
>links in /opt to the new file locations
Even if there was no old installation?

   *yes, an existing customer may have hard-coded paths to the previous 
locations.
A customer may install their software on a new 17.10 machine as a fresh 
install.

>What are the binaries in src/build/install/resources/ext.tgz? Do they have
>sources?
>  *they are some specially built utilities with no source.
Non-free then.
I also wonder how does that work with both ppc64 and ppc64el
architectures.

  *this is a current exposure, which will be handled later. New source will be 
created and added.

>  Why are ${EXT_DIR}/ext.tgz and the firmware files unpacked on install and
>  not on build?
>*the firmware files sum to ~60mb. They zip to ~40mb. We are trying to keep 
> the size of the pkg smaller.
Don't you know packages are compressed?

  *previously, we were using fpm, which did not compress the packages. I can 
remove this.

Regards,
 Mike Vageline
 IBM POWER Software Development

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:54:18PM -0300, Rodrigo wrote:
> We've made some changes and uploaded it again, here is the link -> 
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2520-1.dsc
I don't really see any changes and also you haven't answered many of my 
questions.
Also, the package doesn't build. Please don't upload packages you haven't
tested.

> About the "non-free", how does it work? I mean, we have to change some file
> in specific? (i.e. debian/control)
Change Section: utils to Section: non-free/utils.
Follow 
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#non-free-buildd

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Andrey,

We've made some changes and uploaded it again, here is the link -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2520-1.dsc


About the "non-free", how does it work? I mean, we have to change some 
file in specific? (i.e. debian/control)



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 05:25:14PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
> >   *the software for the firmware images will not be included
> Do you mean the images themselves won't be included?
> 
>   *the binary images are in the cxlflashimage package,
>but the source code won't be included.
Non-free then.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Michael P Vageline]

hi,

>   *the software for the firmware images will not be included
Do you mean the images themselves won't be included?

  *the binary images are in the cxlflashimage package,
   but the source code won't be included.

Regards,
 Mike Vageline
 IBM POWER Software Development

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:46:35PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
>   *the software for the firmware images will not be included
Do you mean the images themselves won't be included?

>   *we need to allow the click-to-accept license. It is a typical generic 
> usage agreement. No fee.
>Our software is installed without running the click-to-accept. If a 
> customer buys an adapter
>we support, then they run the configure script. That configure script 
> invokes the click-to-accept,
>before enabling our software to work with the adapter.
Do you mean that the shipped license is not applied to anything shipped in
the package and is just a set of text files? In that case this is fine.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Michael P Vageline]

 hi,

> >What are the binaries in src/build/install/resources/ext.tgz? Do they 
> > have
> >sources?
> >  *they are some specially built utilities with no source.
> Non-free then.
> I also wonder how does that work with both ppc64 and ppc64el
> architectures.
> 
>   *this is a current exposure, which will be handled later. New source will 
> be created and added.
Will that also apply to the firmware? 
And what about the click-through license?

  *the software for the firmware images will not be included

  *we need to allow the click-to-accept license. It is a typical generic usage 
agreement. No fee.
   Our software is installed without running the click-to-accept. If a customer 
buys an adapter
   we support, then they run the configure script. That configure script 
invokes the click-to-accept,
   before enabling our software to work with the adapter.

Regards,
 Mike Vageline
 IBM POWER Software Development

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:24:37PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
> >Do I understand correctly that postinst touches /opt? Including /opt/bin?
> >I'm not sure that's a good idea even if that's only for migration (and
> >it's definitely a bad idea if anything in /opt is created on a clean
> >system).
> >As the maintainer script logic is very complex, please carefully test 
> > your
> >packgages with piuparts(1).
> > 
> >  *the old packages were installed into /opt, so postinst sets up 
> > symbolic
> >links in /opt to the new file locations
> Even if there was no old installation?
> 
>*yes, an existing customer may have hard-coded paths to the previous 
> locations.
> A customer may install their software on a new 17.10 machine as a fresh 
> install.
There is no specific restriction on touching /opt by packages but
generally we don't do that.
Note though that there is "Distributions may install software in /opt, but
must not modify or delete software installed by the local system
administrator without the assent of the local system administrator." which
may or may not apply here.

> >What are the binaries in src/build/install/resources/ext.tgz? Do they 
> > have
> >sources?
> >  *they are some specially built utilities with no source.
> Non-free then.
> I also wonder how does that work with both ppc64 and ppc64el
> architectures.
> 
>   *this is a current exposure, which will be handled later. New source will 
> be created and added.
Will that also apply to the firmware? 
And what about the click-through license?


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:16:00PM +, Michael P Vageline wrote:
>hi,
>   Thx for your prompt reviews. Here are some more answers:
Please don't send HTML emails.

>Do I understand correctly that postinst touches /opt? Including /opt/bin?
>I'm not sure that's a good idea even if that's only for migration (and
>it's definitely a bad idea if anything in /opt is created on a clean
>system).
>As the maintainer script logic is very complex, please carefully test your
>packgages with piuparts(1).
> 
>  *the old packages were installed into /opt, so postinst sets up symbolic
>links in /opt to the new file locations
Even if there was no old installation?

>What are the binaries in src/build/install/resources/ext.tgz? Do they have
>sources?
>  *they are some specially built utilities with no source.
Non-free then.
I also wonder how does that work with both ppc64 and ppc64el
architectures.

>  Why are ${EXT_DIR}/ext.tgz and the firmware files unpacked on install and
>  not on build?
>*the firmware files sum to ~60mb. They zip to ~40mb. We are trying to keep 
> the size of the pkg smaller.
Don't you know packages are compressed?

>  WTF is in src/build/install/resources/license/? What does it apply to?
> 
> *this is a "click-to-accept" license, which is presented when a user runs 
> a script to configure our adapter
Non-free.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

The package ships firmware, does it have sources? If no, the package must
be in non-free.

What are the binaries in src/build/install/resources/ext.tgz? Do they have
sources?

I: cxlflash: package-contains-empty-directory usr/share/man/man3/
I: cxlflash: unused-override hardening-no-fortify-functions

/usr/include/zmalloc.h sounds too generic, even if such files are not
shipped by any other packages.

/usr/share/cxlflash/readme.txt and maybe some other files should be
shipped in /usr/share/doc/cxlflash/

examples should be shipped in /usr/share/doc/cxlflash/examples/

Why do both packages depend on some -dev packages?

Checking the group presence with `grep cxl /etc/passwd` is very wrong.

Creating in the postinst files/dirs shipped by the package sounds strange.
Changing their perms/ownership without using dpkg-statoverride is wrong.

Why are ${EXT_DIR}/ext.tgz and the firmware files unpacked on install and
not on build?

WTF is in src/build/install/resources/license/? What does it apply to?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 06:54:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> unexport LD_PRELOAD may be a bad idea.
Actually, have you tried to build this? fakeroot doesn't work.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:46:38AM -0300, Rodrigo wrote:
> > > > Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
> > Not fixed.
> The debhelper version is set to (>= 10) on debian/control. Is that what you
> meant?
No, debian/compat sets the compat level.

> > > > Why Vcs-Git but no Vcs-Browser?
> > Not answered.
> The source code is only on GitHub, that's why we used only Vcs-Git. Is that
> correct?
Why would it?
"Vcs-Browser
URL of a web interface for browsing the repository."


Do I understand correctly that postinst touches /opt? Including /opt/bin?
I'm not sure that's a good idea even if that's only for migration (and
it's definitely a bad idea if anything in /opt is created on a clean
system).
As the maintainer script logic is very complex, please carefully test your
packgages with piuparts(1).

Why does the build process depend on $BLOCK_FILEMODE_OVERRIDE?
unexport LD_PRELOAD may be a bad idea.

cxlflash-test.install was not removed.

src/include/fuse.* and src/include/scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h licenses and
copyrights aren't listed in debian/copyright. By the way, Apache 2.0 isn't
compatible with LGPLv2 (though FUSE headers don't seem to be used) and a
combined work of the Apache 2.0 sources and a GPL2+
src/include/scsi/cxlflash_ioctl.h is, AFAIK, under GPL3+ and not Apache
2.0.


-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Andrey,

We've made new changes, here is the link to the .dsc file -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2520-1.dsc



> > > Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
> Not fixed.
The debhelper version is set to (>= 10) on debian/control. Is that what 
you meant?



> > > Why do you explicitly B-D on GCC 5?
> Not answered.
>
> > > Why do you B-D on libudev1 and libcxl1?
> Not answered.

Those libs were removed from Build-Depends.


> > > Why Vcs-Git but no Vcs-Browser?
> Not answered.

The source code is only on GitHub, that's why we used only Vcs-Git. Is 
that correct?



> > > Please remove commented out sample lines from debian/rules.
> Not fixed.

Done.


> What is debian/cxlflash-test.control?

The file was removed.


> What are ibmcapikv and afuimage?

Those are the previous names for the cxlflash packages, which could 
exist on a machine.



> Why libcflsh_usfs-0.so exports symbols from libc?

The usfc software has been removed, so there are no symbols related with 
libcflsh_usfs-0.so anymore.



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:52:04PM -0300, Rodrigo wrote:
> Regarding the shared libs, they are installed together in the cxlflash
> package, so they'll all be sync'd in the build process. Besides, we commit
> to never change a shared library published interface in a way it breaks the
> binary compatibility, so any binary can work with any shared lib version.
We'll see.

> > Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
Not fixed.

> > Why do you explicitly B-D on GCC 5?
Not answered.

> > Why do you B-D on libudev1 and libcxl1?
Not answered.

> > Why Vcs-Git but no Vcs-Browser?
Not answered.

> > Please remove commented out sample lines from debian/rules.
Not fixed.


What is debian/cxlflash-test.control?
What are ibmcapikv and afuimage?
Why libcflsh_usfs-0.so exports symbols from libc?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Andrey,

We changed some things based on the points you made. I uploaded the 
package again to mentors.debian, here is the link to the .dsc file -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2518-1.dsc


Regarding the shared libs, they are installed together in the cxlflash 
package, so they'll all be sync'd in the build process. Besides, we 
commit to never change a shared library published interface in a way it 
breaks the binary compatibility, so any binary can work with any shared 
lib version.


> Maintainer and Uploaders contain the same mpvag...@us.ibm.com email.
> Priority should be optional.
> Current Standards-Version is 4.0.1.
> Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
> Why do you explicitly B-D on GCC 5?
> Why do you B-D on libudev1 and libcxl1?
> Why Vcs-Git but no Vcs-Browser?
> Vcs-Git gives 404.
> Please don't set DH_VERBOSE=1 and DH_OPTIONS=-v.
> Please remove commented out sample lines from debian/rules.
> Why are you running dh_install in override_dh_auto_install?
> Why is override_dh_gencontrol needed?
> override_dh_installdeb looks ugly and problematic.
> Maintainer scripts don't have debhelper markers.
> Why are you skipping dh_testroot?
> debian/source/include-binaries lists files that don't exist, doesn't it?
> How are you going to handle soname changes if you ship shared libs in a
> non-lib package?



Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi,

Here is the link for the .dsc file in mentors.debian -> 
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2493-1.dsc


P.S. sorry for the previous html message, I sent it by mistake.


Thanks,
Rodrigo R. Galvao

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

Maintainer and Uploaders contain the same mpvag...@us.ibm.com email.
Priority should be optional.
Current Standards-Version is 4.0.1.
Please switch to the debhelper compat level 10.
Why do you explicitly B-D on GCC 5?
Why do you B-D on libudev1 and libcxl1?
Why Vcs-Git but no Vcs-Browser?
Vcs-Git gives 404.
Please don't set DH_VERBOSE=1 and DH_OPTIONS=-v.
Please remove commented out sample lines from debian/rules.
Why are you running dh_install in override_dh_auto_install?
Why is override_dh_gencontrol needed?
override_dh_installdeb looks ugly and problematic.
Maintainer scripts don't have debhelper markers.
Why are you skipping dh_testroot?
debian/source/include-binaries lists files that don't exist, doesn't it?
How are you going to handle soname changes if you ship shared libs in a
non-lib package?

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Rodrigo]

Hi Fred,

> I didn't check deep but I can see that the packaging is not following
> the latest policy manual (newer-standards-version) : have a look to this
> document (
> https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt )
> to fix this ; 
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Standards-Version


I've checked and the current Standards-Version is the latest: 4.0.0

> Also, could you make the debian/watch file work please ?
The watch file is working now. I uploaded the package to debian/mentors 
again after these changes.


Thanks,

Rodrigo R. Galvão

Bug#870909: RFS: cxlflash/4.3.2493-1 [ITP] -- IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software Libraries

[Frédéric Bonnard]

Hi Rodrigo,

I do not intend to sponsor this package but I'm just willing to help.

Be careful to target "Package: sponsorship-request*s*" : the bug as been
properly re-assigned to "sponsorship-requests", but it didn't reach the
mentors audience as I can tell.

I didn't check deep but I can see that the packaging is not following
the latest policy manual (newer-standards-version) : have a look to this
document (
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt )
to fix this ; 
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Standards-Version
Also, could you make the debian/watch file work please ?
Thanks,

F.


> Package: sponsorship-request
> Severity: normal
> 
> Dear mentors,
> 
>  I am looking for a sponsor for my package "cxlflash"
> 
> * Package name: cxlflash
>   Version : 4.3.2493-1
>   Upstream Author : Mike Vageline 
> * URL : https://github.com/open-power/capiflash
> * License : GPL-2+, Apache-2.0
>   Section : utils
> 
>  It builds those binary packages:
> 
> cxlflash   - IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software 
> Libraries : cxlflash
> cxlflashimage - IBM Data Engine for NoSQL Software 
> Libraries : cxlflash afu libra
> 
>  To access further information about this package, please visit the following 
> URL:
>  https://mentors.debian.net/package/cxlflash
> 
> 
>  Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
> 
>dget -x 
>
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cxlflash/cxlflash_4.3.2493-1.dsc
> 
>  More information about hello can be obtained from
>  https://github.com/open-power/capiflash.
> 
> 
>  Regards,
>Rodrigo R. Galvao


pgpvbWQyUKtL2.pgp
Description: PGP signature