On Sat, 2010-12-18 at 22:08 -0500, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
I have nothing to contribute to this, except:
Thanks to Sage and Clint for pinging us again!
Here's another ping.
Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now,
Hi Clint,
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
good to get CEPH into that NEW queue ASAP.
Please don't get me wrong, but did you check
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 20:09 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi Clint,
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
good to get CEPH into
I have nothing to contribute to this, except:
Thanks to Sage and Clint for pinging us again!
And thanks to Laszlo for his excellent review and packaging work.
I'm happy to stay CC:d so I can keep track of this lovely packaging
process!
-- Asheesh.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi Sage, Yehuda,
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
[ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ]
I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now moot. It's all
pushed to the ceph rc
Hey Laszlo,
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
[ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ]
I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Laszlo Boszormenyi g...@debian.hu wrote:
Hi Clint,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:19 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
with COPYING, then
Hi Clint,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:19 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
with COPYING, then there's no need for a license header.
Got a confirmation from an FTP Assistant,
Hi Sage,
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Great! There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2
first, if it isn't too much trouble. I can do that today.
I've found the manpage problem that I've noted before. It's about
monmaptool, the CLI says it's usage:
Hi Laszlo,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi Sage,
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Great! There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2
first, if it isn't too much trouble. I can do that today.
I've found the manpage problem that
Hi Sage,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:15 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Can you take a look at the 'testing' branch in git commit 5bdae2af?
That's how I've been doing releases, more or less. Assuming packaging
issues are sorted out prior to that point, that's all that should be
needed, right?
I
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi Sage,
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 10:15 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Can you take a look at the 'testing' branch in git commit 5bdae2af?
That's how I've been doing releases, more or less. Assuming packaging
issues are sorted out prior to that
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
I'm not an ftp-master, but your package maybe rejected[2] for two
reasons. I think only debian/copyright is not enough, all source files
should have a comment header about their license in short. You have it
I don't see where this
Hey Laszlo,
These changes are great! I incorporated all of your changes into
ceph.git, and also fixed up the ceph.spec.in to include the missed gui
files.
I've changed the way debug parts of the packages are handled. It may
sound harsh and so I'm open to revert that back to your way.
Yay,
Hi Sage,
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Sage: may you let me handle the packaging for Debian and Ubuntu? [...]
Whatever you think would work best. I would like to keep the debian/
files in some form or another (although whether they live in ceph.git is
an open
Hi Clint,
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
Ubuntu.
If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into
Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally
does get uploaded
Hi all,
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 11:24 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
Ubuntu.
That would be an important goal. Feel free to contact me if you need
any changes to be more suitable for
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 01:00 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi all,
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 11:24 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
Ubuntu.
That would be an important goal. Feel free
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:26 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
Hi Clint,
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
I do so.
Whoops, I thought
Hi guys,
I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
I do so.
Thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Hi Clint,
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
I do so.
Whoops, I thought it was uploaded a month or so ago, but checking now it
looks
21 matches
Mail list logo
