Hi, If you're interested in the bcache-status[1] tool, I'd be happy to work with you to get (and keep) it in Debian. I /think/ it's in the Fedora package. (afaict the script is not in any of those git trees...) On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:55:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: > I have some progress to report. I also think that this is ready to > upload, though we should sort out a couple of things first. > > I've added the bcache list (this is the Debian packaging bug) since > there is a question about some of these commits that seem to be relevant > to upstream but aren't in the upstream branch. > > I've done some (functional only) testing of bcache itself with a > colleague, and we haven't seen any major issues. > > I think the packaging is good to go, though I've added a removal of one > extraneous file and updated debian/copyright. This is in > github.com/basak/bcache-tools. I haven't submitted any pull requests to > avoid confusion (see below). > > A colleague (James Page) is a DD and is prepared to upload, provided > that we all agree on who will maintain the package first. I'm happy to > step up. Who else does? > > I found following all the various git trees confusing, and think we > should resolve this soon after upload. There are three git trees I'm > aware of, and I've added a fourth: > > 1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git > 2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git > 3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git > 4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git I had thought that #2 was the new upstream, but then I haven't paid attention in a while either. --D [1] https://gist.github.com/djwong/6343451 > > Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem to > contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the > "upstream" repository (1). > > Can we define which the canonical upstream source tree is, please, and > where the canonical Debian packaging branch should be? Then we can work > on pushing the changes back to the right places, rather than having > scattered branches all over the place. I noticed some changes to the > upstream source that don't appear to be in branch 1, for example. > > I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go and > this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can > work from. > > In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned that > one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my > commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git. > > So in summary: > > 1) Define and agree maintainers. > 2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop > Vcs-Git for now. > 3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already > reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there are > any objections to James uploading. > 4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches, > and push all commits to those places. > > In the meantime, I'll upload to Ubuntu as I can do that straight away > and we're quite close to release now. I hope that we can get Debian > straightened out soon. > > Robie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
