Indeed it's included in the Fedora package! Rolf > Op 18 sep. 2014 om 01:21 heeft "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> het volgende geschreven: > > 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 -- 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
