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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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