From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Russell Coker Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Debian packaging Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:51:10 +0100 References: <0012132115222N.00826@lyta> <20001214104641.A15193@sistina.com> In-Reply-To: <20001214104641.A15193@sistina.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0012150751103E.00826@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@sistina.com, lewis@sistina.com Cc: tal26@cam.ac.uk On 2000-12-14 17:46, lewis@sistina.com wrote: >>On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:15:22PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: >> I plan to take over the Debian package of lvm because the current >> maintainer hasn't fixed serious bugs for quite a while. > >A couple of questions. Have you tried contacting Tom Lees > ? I have talked to him and he is working on LVM 0.9 > packages for sure. Has this transfer of maintainers been approved by t= he > powers that be at Debian yet? I have sent him email at his tom@debian.org address. If you don't reply to email sent to the package maintainer address and do= n't=20 fix high-priority bugs in your packages then your packages can be NMU'd=20 without any issue. After an NMU if there is still no response then they = are=20 up for grabs. If he doesn't want me to take over the package then he will have to reply= to=20 my email. >> I have created packages for lvm 0.8.1 and lvm 0.9. One change I think >> should be done is an option for ./configure to specify whether a share= d >> library should be used or whether the programs should be statically >> linked. If this is desired then someone please tell me which version = I >> should create a patch against and I'll send it in. > >Since the configure.in scripts are essentially the same, you can just su= bmit > a patch to one or the other to the lvm-devel list and we'll get it in o= n > the next release. I am the one responsible for the conversion of LKM t= o > the autoconf system, so I'd be interested to see how you intend to > accomplish this. LKM? >Are you saying you want this patch applied to the upstream source? That >really doesn't make much sense to me. The Makefile.in patch is complete= ly >unnecessary because the subdirectories Makefile.in files handle those Right. At the time I wrote it I obviously hadn't looked at the code enou= gh. =20 It had seemed not to do what I wanted so I patched it. >cleanups. And it doesn't make any sense to me to put the ${PREFIX} stuf= f in >the upstream version, as it is not necessary. That is what the You're right. It's better to set prefix=3D`pwd`/debian/tmp/ at install t= ime. >> Also I would prefer to have the Debian packaging files in the upstream >> source. They are about 5K of data in 11 files in a separate >> sub-directory. Please let me know if this would be desired/accepted as >> part of the LVM upstream source and I will send the relevant patch to = you. > >One question. Why? Seems completely unnecessary to me. It makes things easier for people doing other distributions amoung other=20 things. If you had a Red Hat spec file in there then it would have made=20 things a bit easier for me (I could probably find one on the net somewher= e=20 but then there's issues of whether it matches the source I've got etc). Also if someone submits a patch for lvm then they would (hopefully) also=20 patch the Debian setup in a matching fashion thus saving duplication of=20 effort. Debian packaging files in the CVS works well for KDE... --=20 http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page