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 point, that's all that should be > > needed, right? > I think I've noted that cephfs and radosacl are without manpages. > Please write one for them. Do you have an upstream changelog somewhere? > ChangeLog is still empty. Really minor that I write 'new upstream > release' to debian/changelog . Otherwise it's OK for uploading. I'm wondering if it's even worth generating a ChangeLog. Maybe only for the release tarball? It's all in git. I guess we can just put the old debian/changelog at ChangeLog and continue summarizing the main items... > > (BTW, the v0.23.2 bugfix release is mostly pointless as v0.24 is just a > > couple days away anyway. Just for the sake of illustration...) > There's no chance that ceph will be included in Squeeze and the next > release of Ubuntu is several months away. You have time and it's your > decision when should I first upload ceph. Please note that Debian is in > freeze ATM, it may need even two weeks to be accepted to the archive[1]; > and even if it's in the NEW queue, I can upload new versions into it. Okay. I'd mainly like to get the packaging issues sorted out so that it's just a matter of updating on each release, and so that sid users can get it. > 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 > in cephfs.cc , cfuse.cc , etc; but missing in barclass.cc , cconf.cc , > cls_acl.cc and in others. Any chance you want to submit a patch? Unless otherwise noted, everything is LGPL2 and copyright whatever git log tells you. > Second is that you link with OpenSSL when your > license is (L)GPL. See their FAQ[3] and the fact that I can't find any > upstream license file permitting that nor it's mentioned in > debian/copyright . Also you may see the debian/copyright of my packages, > like neon27[4]: it has a pointer to the full license file > under /usr/share/common-licenses/ . > On the other hand, it went into Ubuntu without any problems. Clint, > Noèl? Feel free to post comment on what needs to be done with ceph > packaging to be accepted on the first round. Hmm, yeah, that may be an issue here. See [1] and [2]. Maybe we should look at using gnutls instead of openssl. sage [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00253.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg14110.html