Debian Bug report logs - #506040
ITP: ceph -- a distributed filesystem

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:21:02 UTC

Owned by: Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>

Severity: wishlist

Fixed in versions ceph/0.24-1, ceph/0.24.1-1, ceph/0.24.2-1

Done: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox

Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:21:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to debian-devel@lists.debian.org, <wnpp@debian.org>. (Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:21:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>

* Package name    : ceph
  Version         : 0.5
  Upstream Author : Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
* URL             : http://ceph.newdream.net/
* License         : LGPL
  Programming Lang: C, C++
  Description     : a distributed filesystem

 Ceph is a distributed network file system designed to provide excellent 
 performance, reliability, and scalability.
 . 
 Key features:
 * seamless scaling
 * strong reliability and fast recovery
 * adaptive metadata server
 * flexible snapshots and directory snapshots
 * nfs reexport
 * object storage based on btrfs

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:33:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Alex Owen <r.alex.owen@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:33:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #10 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Ceph in Debian would be great!

As Linux has merged the ceph client for 2.6.34 [1] (due out soon now)
then the client will come to Debian probably in Squeeze+1.
Testing=Squeeze as of today (2010-04-14) seems to have kernel 2.6.32-9
I don't know that 2.6.34 will make it to testing before Squeeze's
release... I guess we will have to see!

Looks like ceph server version 0.19 is now available (since 2010-02-17).

Perhaps aiming to package 0.20 for experimental would widen ceph's visibility?

It looks like the ceph developers are preparing debian packaging
anyway so may not be too hard to get it into debian.

[1] http://ceph.newdream.net/2010/03/client-merged-for-2-6-34/
[2] http://ceph.newdream.net/2010/02/v0-19-released/

Anyway just some thoughts!

Alex Owen

Acknowledgement sent to Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #15 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Alex Owen <r.alex.owen@gmail.com> (14/04/2010):
> I don't know that 2.6.34 will make it to testing before Squeeze's
> release... I guess we will have to see!

won't happen, squeeze will release with 2.6.32; happy waiting ;)

Mraw,
KiBi.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message sent on to Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040. (Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #18 received at 506040-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi,

what is the status of this ITP?

Cheers,

Marcus

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:30:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #23 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Sage, first off, thanks for producing debian source packages and
maintaining your own apt repository.


I'm curious if you're involved at all with this debian Intent To Package
bug 


http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506040 for ceph.


Also, to all involved with the ITP, I'd really like to see the ceph 0.20
user space tools hit Debian and sync with Ubuntu. The packages that Sage
produces upstream appear to meet debian policy requirements (though they
could use a little cleaning up). So while the official debian kernel
does not support ceph, it seems worthwhile to have the userspace tools
in the archive ahead of the kernel.

Is there anything preventing the upload? Can I do anything to help with
the ITP?

Thanks!

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:03:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:03:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #28 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Sage, first off, thanks for producing debian source packages and
> maintaining your own apt repository.
> 
> 
> I'm curious if you're involved at all with this debian Intent To Package
> bug 
> 
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506040 for ceph.

Yes.  Well, I have a mentor (Asheesh Laroia) but am also working on 
getting DM status so I can upload releases myself.  I am meeting a DD 
later this week to get the requisite PGP sig.

> Also, to all involved with the ITP, I'd really like to see the ceph 0.20
> user space tools hit Debian and sync with Ubuntu. The packages that Sage
> produces upstream appear to meet debian policy requirements (though they
> could use a little cleaning up). So while the official debian kernel
> does not support ceph, it seems worthwhile to have the userspace tools
> in the archive ahead of the kernel.

There is also a dkms module in the works.  I'm not sure exactly what state 
it's in at this point (see ceph-client-standalone.git) as I haven't tested 
it myself, but it would be great if that could hit sid as well!

> Is there anything preventing the upload? Can I do anything to help with
> the ITP?

sage

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:03:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:03:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #33 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi! I've been swamped lately, so your help reviewing the packaging would 
help with the ITP.

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #38 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Sage,

I've been reviewing the package, and I'm almost done. However, there are
some issues with the licensing that may prevent it from entering Debian
and/or Ubuntu's archive:

src/client/fuse.cc has this header:

/*
 * Ceph - scalable distributed file system * * Copyright (C) 2004-2006
 Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net> * * This is free software; you can
 redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser
 General Public * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software
 * Foundation.  See file COPYING.  * */


/*
    FUSE: Filesystem in Userspace Copyright (C) 2001-2005  Miklos Szeredi
    <miklos@szeredi.hu>

    This program can be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL.
    See the file COPYING.
*/


Since the file was originally under the GPL, I believe it cannot not be
re-licensed to the LGPL 2.1 in this way without Miklos assigning copyright
to you or granting you special permission to relicense the file. This
would actually require the entire client to be re-licensed to the GPL.

This appears to be a copy of  the example/fusexmp.c file from the fuse
distribution. Assuming it came from v2.4.2 (the last one to have the
2005 Copyright), I think you've changed it enough to justify removing
Miklos' copyright:

clint@ubuntu:~/pkg/ceph/scratch/fuse-2.4.2$ diff -u
example/fusexmp.c ../../bzr/ceph/src/client/fuse.cc | grep
'^-'|wc -l 261 clint@ubuntu:~/pkg/ceph/scratch/fuse-2.4.2$ diff -u
example/fusexmp.c ../../bzr/ceph/src/client/fuse.cc | grep '^+'|wc -l
214 clint@ubuntu:~/pkg/ceph/scratch/fuse-2.4.2$ wc -l example/fusexmp.c
353 example/fusexmp.c

So, you've changed 261 lines of 353. That is 73.9%. I think in some
countries that constitutes enough change to remove the original copyright,
but its not clear enough to pass Debian's Free Source Guidelines. You'd
probably be better off just obtaining permission from Miklos to re-license
that file as LGPL, or simply re-licensing the 'cfuse' source files under
the GPLv2 (which is what version of the GPL fuse 2.4.2 is distributed
under). Since it is a binary program, and not a library, it makes
sense anyway.

Anyway, hopefully we can get that licensing issue cleared up quickly so
ceph makes it into the 10.10 release of Ubuntu.

Otherwise the package looks good. I've just changed a few things. Its
all stored in a branch on launchpad here:

https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/+junk/ceph-packaging

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 21 Jul 2010 04:54:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #43 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:

> Hi Sage,
> 
> I've been reviewing the package, and I'm almost done. However, there are
> some issues with the licensing that may prevent it from entering Debian
> and/or Ubuntu's archive:
> 
> src/client/fuse.cc has this header:
> 
> /*
>  * Ceph - scalable distributed file system * * Copyright (C) 2004-2006
>  Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net> * * This is free software; you can
>  redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser
>  General Public * License version 2.1, as published by the Free Software
>  * Foundation.  See file COPYING.  * */
> 
> 
> /*
>     FUSE: Filesystem in Userspace Copyright (C) 2001-2005  Miklos Szeredi
>     <miklos@szeredi.hu>
> 
>     This program can be distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL.
>     See the file COPYING.
> */
> 
> 
> Since the file was originally under the GPL, I believe it cannot not be
> re-licensed to the LGPL 2.1 in this way without Miklos assigning copyright
> to you or granting you special permission to relicense the file. This
> would actually require the entire client to be re-licensed to the GPL.

Hi Clint,

I'll just change the license for that file to GPL.  The LGPL is used for 
the rest to allow linking the client side stuff into applications, but 
that's not important for fuse.cc.  (And in any case, fuse.cc is mostly 
unused... cfuse uses fuse_ll.cc by default.)

I'm applying your cleanups to the upstream debian/.  A 0.21 release is (I 
hope) about a week away, and there are a number of changes in the ceph.git 
unstable branch.

> Anyway, hopefully we can get that licensing issue cleared up quickly so
> ceph makes it into the 10.10 release of Ubuntu.

What's the timeframe for that?

Thanks!
sage

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:18:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #48 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> 
> Hi Clint,
> 
> I'll just change the license for that file to GPL.  The LGPL is used for 
> the rest to allow linking the client side stuff into applications, but 
> that's not important for fuse.cc.  (And in any case, fuse.cc is mostly 
> unused... cfuse uses fuse_ll.cc by default.)
> 

Right, why didn't I think of that? :) LGPL sourced object code can of course be 
linked into a GPL sourced binary.

> I'm applying your cleanups to the upstream debian/.  A 0.21 release is (I 
> hope) about a week away, and there are a number of changes in the ceph.git 
> unstable branch.

Great news. Thanks for the quick reply!

> 
>> Anyway, hopefully we can get that licensing issue cleared up quickly so
>> ceph makes it into the 10.10 release of Ubuntu.
> 
> What's the timeframe for that?
> 

Here is the release schedule:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickReleaseSchedule

The package will need to be uploaded before the "FeatureFreeze" which is on
August 12th.

It would be best if it were ready for upload by July 29th, as that way it would be
included in Alpha3.

Hopefully also we can get it uploaded to Debian ASAP so that both
distributions benefit. Maybe your mentor can sponsor its upload?

Acknowledgement sent to Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:51:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #53 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint, thanks a whole bundle for being careful in that review!

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:

> The package will need to be uploaded before the "FeatureFreeze" which is 
> on August 12th.
>
> It would be best if it were ready for upload by July 29th, as that way 
> it would be included in Alpha3.
>
> Hopefully also we can get it uploaded to Debian ASAP so that both 
> distributions benefit. Maybe your mentor can sponsor its upload?

Okay, I'll keep my eye on my email (-:

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:51:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:51:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #58 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint, Asheesh,

I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.

	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc

Thanks!
sage

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:51:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #63 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Sage,

I'll take a look at this today and get back to you ASAP.

On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> Hi Clint, Asheesh,
> 
> I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
> below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
> packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
> 
> 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> 
> Thanks!
> sage

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:36:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #68 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> Hi Clint, Asheesh,
> 
> I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
> below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
> packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
> 
> 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> 

Sage, the package looks great.

Asheesh, if it meets your requirements for sponsorship, do you think you can get this uploaded into Debian by next week? I'd like to get this into Ubuntu 10.10 (maverick), and we won't really be able to add any new packages after next Thursday.

Thanks all!

Acknowledgement sent to Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:18:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #73 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:

>
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>
>> Hi Clint, Asheesh,
>>
>> I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc
>> below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any
>> packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
>>
>> 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
>>
>
> Sage, the package looks great.
>
> Asheesh, if it meets your requirements for sponsorship, do you think you 
> can get this uploaded into Debian by next week? I'd like to get this 
> into Ubuntu 10.10 (maverick), and we won't really be able to add any new 
> packages after next Thursday.

It might not clear the NEW queue by then... especially as the ftpmasters 
will be at Debconf.

But I will review it and email you guys tomorrow. Which means, 10 PM 
US/Eastern, if you haven't heard from me, email me to bug me.

-- Asheesh.

-- 
Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more
deadly in the long run.
		-- Mark Twain

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #78 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

I spoke too soon, I did just now notice these lintian issues, which should probably be resolved:

E: ceph source: weak-library-dev-dependency librados1-dev on librados1
E: ceph source: weak-library-dev-dependency libceph1-dev on libceph1
W: ceph source: debhelper-script-needs-versioned-build-depends dh_lintian (>= 6.0.7~)
E: ceph source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version g++ [build-depends: g++]
E: ceph source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version gcc [build-depends: gcc]
W: ceph source: ancient-standards-version 3.7.2 (current is 3.8.4)

On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> Hi Clint, Asheesh,
> 
> I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
> below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
> packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
> 
> 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> 
> Thanks!
> sage

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:03:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #83 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

I've updated my branch with the latest 0.21 package plus the lintian issues fixed:

https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/+junk/ceph-packaging

On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> Hi Clint, Asheesh,
> 
> I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
> below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
> packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
> 
> 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> 
> Thanks!
> sage

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:03:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #88 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I spoke too soon, I did just now notice these lintian issues, which should probably be resolved:
> 
> E: ceph source: weak-library-dev-dependency librados1-dev on librados1
> E: ceph source: weak-library-dev-dependency libceph1-dev on libceph1
> W: ceph source: debhelper-script-needs-versioned-build-depends dh_lintian (>= 6.0.7~)
> W: ceph source: ancient-standards-version 3.7.2 (current is 3.8.4)

Fixed these, thanks.  I must have an older lintian installed here.

> E: ceph source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version g++ [build-depends: g++]
> E: ceph source: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version gcc [build-depends: gcc]

I'm not sure what gcc/g++ version I should be specifying here, as I'm not 
aware of any compiler version specific issues.  Is (>= 4) sufficient?

Thanks!
sage


> 
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> 
> > Hi Clint, Asheesh,
> > 
> > I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
> > below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
> > packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
> > 
> > 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > sage
> 
>

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:09:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #93 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> I've updated my branch with the latest 0.21 package plus the lintian issues fixed:
> 
> https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/+junk/ceph-packaging

Is it safe to remove the build-depends on g++ and gcc entirely?

sage

> 
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> 
> > Hi Clint, Asheesh,
> > 
> > I am about to finalize a v0.21 release.  Do you mind looking at the .dsc 
> > below and checking that everything is to your liking?  I'd like to fix any 
> > packaging issues before tagging the release if possible.
> > 
> > 	http://ceph.newdream.net/testing/0.21/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > sage
> 
>

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:42:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #98 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Jul 28, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> I've updated my branch with the latest 0.21 package plus the lintian issues fixed:
>> 
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/+junk/ceph-packaging
> 
> Is it safe to remove the build-depends on g++ and gcc entirely?
> 

Yes, build-essential is *always* assumed to be present when building packages.

http://lintian.debian.org/tags/depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version.html

Message #103 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Okay, v0.21 is out.  The .dsc is at

  http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21-1.dsc

Thanks guys!
sage

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #108 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Thanks Sage,

Working under the assumption that the package won't clear NEW by next
week, we've been working to upload directly into Ubuntu for 10.10.

It would be very helpful if you could review the comments and changes
here and offer any suggestions.

https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/review-new-branches/ceph-new-pkg/+merge/31303

One thing noticed was that there is a 'debian/rados.install' file, but no
'rados' package in debian/control, I'd love to get your opeinion as to
what we should do about that.

Thanks!

On Jul 29, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> Okay, v0.21 is out.  The .dsc is at
> 
>  http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21-1.dsc
> 
> Thanks guys!
> sage

Message #113 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Sage, Mathias has uploaded ceph into the universe archive for Ubuntu, meaning it 
should be present for the 10.10 release in October.

It is versioned as 0.21-0ubuntu1, so as soon as 0.21-1 is uploaded to Debian, we will sync/merge it.

There was some confusion regarding the official release tarball and the debian packaging
it contains, I think a few things didn't make it in to the debian dir from the testing 
branch of the git repository.

I've attached the patch, which we have in our debian/patches dir. It moves mkcephfs to 
sbin from usr/sbin, which is where the official tarball's install files expect it to be.

Thanks for all the help, and looking forward to working together with you as ceph matures!

[fix-mkcephfs-path.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:18:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #118 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint,

Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in 
the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1.  The .dsc is at

 http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc

Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too?

Let me know if there are any remaining issues.

Thanks!
sage


On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:

> Hi Sage, Mathias has uploaded ceph into the universe archive for Ubuntu, meaning it 
> should be present for the 10.10 release in October.
> 
> It is versioned as 0.21-0ubuntu1, so as soon as 0.21-1 is uploaded to Debian, we will sync/merge it.
> 
> There was some confusion regarding the official release tarball and the debian packaging
> it contains, I think a few things didn't make it in to the debian dir from the testing 
> branch of the git repository.
> 
> I've attached the patch, which we have in our debian/patches dir. It moves mkcephfs to 
> sbin from usr/sbin, which is where the official tarball's install files expect it to be.
> 
> Thanks for all the help, and looking forward to working together with you as ceph matures!
>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:48:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:48:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #123 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Sage Weil wrote:

> Hi Clint,
>
> Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes 
> (in the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1.  The .dsc 
> is at
>
> http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc
>
> Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too?

Hi! I suck at handling email apparently.

I hope to have this done within 48 hours. If not, ping me again, and 
sound very annoyed so I sympathize! (-:

-- Asheesh.

-- 
You will be recognized and honored as a community leader.

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:00:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #128 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Asheesh,

Good timing.  I've just released v0.21.3, which includes a number of 
bugfixes since v0.21.1:

 http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.3-1.dsc

Clint, is it too late to get these into 10.10 as well?

Thanks!
sage



On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Asheesh Laroia wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Sage Weil wrote:
> 
> > Hi Clint,
> > 
> > Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in
> > the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1.  The .dsc is at
> > 
> > http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc
> > 
> > Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too?
> 
> Hi! I suck at handling email apparently.
> 
> I hope to have this done within 48 hours. If not, ping me again, and sound
> very annoyed so I sympathize! (-:
> 
> -- Asheesh.
> 
> -- 
> You will be recognized and honored as a community leader.
> 
>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #133 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Sep 18, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Sage Weil wrote:

> Hi Asheesh,
> 
> Good timing.  I've just released v0.21.3, which includes a number of 
> bugfixes since v0.21.1:
> 
> http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.3-1.dsc
> 
> Clint, is it too late to get these into 10.10 as well?
> 

Hi Sage,

As long as it just fixes bugs, it should be ok. While the main archive
entered final freeze on Thursday, universe isn't distributed on media, 
and so can be updated up until just before the release.

I'll check out 0.21.3 on Monday and if it looks like minor enough updates,
I'll see if we can get it sponsored in for 10.10.

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #138 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Asheesh Laroia wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Sage Weil wrote:
> 
> > Hi Clint,
> > 
> > Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in
> > the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1.  The .dsc is at
> > 
> > http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc
> > 
> > Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too?
> 
> Hi! I suck at handling email apparently.
> 
> I hope to have this done within 48 hours. If not, ping me again, and sound
> very annoyed so I sympathize! (-:

Hi Asheesh,

Just following up on this!  I'm not seeing it in the archive.

sage

Acknowledgement sent to Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:12:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #143 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Sage Weil wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Sage Weil wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Clint,
>>>
>>> Sorry about the testing confusion.. I was queueing up the little fixes (in
>>> the software and the packaging) and just rolled a 0.21.1.  The .dsc is at
>>>
>>> http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.21.1-1.dsc
>>>
>>> Asheesh, can this one get uploaded to debian, too?
>>
>> Hi! I suck at handling email apparently.
>>
>> I hope to have this done within 48 hours. If not, ping me again, and sound
>> very annoyed so I sympathize! (-:
>
> Hi Asheesh,
>
> Just following up on this!  I'm not seeing it in the archive.

Hi! By this coming Monday. I'll upload to experimental.

(I have a dedicated Debian hack night scheduled for then.)

-- Asheesh.

-- 
Writing is easy; all you do is sit staring at the blank sheet of paper until
drops of blood form on your forehead.
		-- Gene Fowler

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:21:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:21:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #148 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi guys,

I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
I do so.

Thanks!

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:27:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:27:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #153 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint,

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
> wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
> I do so.

Whoops, I thought it was uploaded a month or so ago, but checking now it 
looks like it wasn't.  Laszlo was most recently going to do it, but if he
doesn't have the bandwidth Noel also offered to.  I'm assuming it's 
simpler to base the ubuntu package off what's in debian?  I'd hold off a 
day or two for that.

Thanks!
sage

Message #158 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 15:26 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> Hi Clint,
> 
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > 
> > I'm about to start working on merging 0.23 into Ubuntu, and I'm just
> > wondering if there has been any progress on adding CEPH to debian before
> > I do so.
> 
> Whoops, I thought it was uploaded a month or so ago, but checking now it 
> looks like it wasn't.  Laszlo was most recently going to do it, but if he
> doesn't have the bandwidth Noel also offered to.  I'm assuming it's 
> simpler to base the ubuntu package off what's in debian?  I'd hold off a 
> day or two for that.
> 

Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
Ubuntu.

If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into
Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally
does get uploaded is much simpler.

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:33 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #163 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint,

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
> Ubuntu.
> 
> If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into
> Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally
> does get uploaded is much simpler.

The current latest is at

 http://ceph.newdream.net/debian/pool/ceph-stable/c/ceph/ceph_0.23.1-1.dsc

As I understand it, the current issues are:
 - whitespace in debian/rules
 - something with the .install files and installing into the source tree 
that I didn't understand.. can you clarify Laszlo?

Thanks!
sage

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:03:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:03:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #168 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi all,

On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 11:24 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
> > Ubuntu.
 That would be an important goal. Feel free to contact me if you need
any changes to be more suitable for Ubuntu.

> > If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into
> > Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally
> > does get uploaded is much simpler.
 You can get the modified package from my site[1]. I don't say it's
ready, but fixes most of the problems that Sage made.

> As I understand it, the current issues are:
>  - whitespace in debian/rules
 Yes, there was some extra whitespace, an extra and missing blank lines
in debian/rules . It's cosmetic only of course.

>  - something with the .install files and installing into the source tree 
> that I didn't understand.. can you clarify Laszlo?
 Sure. The biggest problem was that you installed everything to
$(CURDIR) , which is the source tree. Then you used dh_install to move
out the files from there. make install was a bit nonsense this way, as
the compiled binaries was already in the source tree; there was no need
to install them the same place. I've changed it to the more common
$(DESTDIR) which is debian/tmp/ . This way you can use --list-missing or
the more aggressive --fail-missing to dh_install to see if you miss
files.
Yes, you do missed files. One is the radosacl binary, that I put into
the radosgw package. You neither installed
usr/share/ceph_tool/gui_resources/ (SVG and glade files) that went into
the ceph package.
Your cleaning process missed several points like the missing removal of
src/.deps/ and some generated files. There are more you can find.

I've changed the way debug parts of the packages are handled. It may
sound harsh and so I'm open to revert that back to your way.

Less important mistakes that debian/changes is for packaging changes,
for upstream changes you can use ChangeLog ; it can be installed with
dh_installdocs .
Also implicitly noted that this is a first generation package (not
converted to quilt as Sage said it should build on Lenny as well).

Sage: may you let me handle the packaging for Debian and Ubuntu? So you
can find more time working on ceph itself as it has some inconsistency
as well. Binaries without manpages like cephfs and radosacl ; somewhere
the manpage contains an example which is not a valid command (at least
in v0.23 , it passed midnight and now I can't remember which one is it).

Are you sure that ceph should depend on hdparm? What if my box has SCSI,
SAS or other disk that isn't [sP]ATA? Yes, there's sdparm, but do you
use it directly from ceph? Should it be a recommendation instead?
Also uniformed *.install files, don't start them with a slash.
Added a watch file and specific fields to debian/control .

If others agree, I'll upload it in some days. It'll sit into the NEW
queue and may take a while to be officially accepted.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] dget http://www.routers.hu/gcs/ceph_0.23.1-1.dsc

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #173 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 01:00 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 11:24 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Yes we'd much rather have a single package that works in both Debian and
> > > Ubuntu.
>  That would be an important goal. Feel free to contact me if you need
> any changes to be more suitable for Ubuntu.
> 
> > > If you know exactly what package is being looked at for upload into
> > > Debian, I can at least start with that so that the merge when it finally
> > > does get uploaded is much simpler.
>  You can get the modified package from my site[1]. I don't say it's
> ready, but fixes most of the problems that Sage made.
> 

Laszlo, great work so far really.

I'll have an in depth look at the package and see how it performs on
upgrade from the one we have in Maverick.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #178 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hey Laszlo,

These changes are great!  I incorporated all of your changes into 
ceph.git, and also fixed up the ceph.spec.in to include the missed gui 
files.

> I've changed the way debug parts of the packages are handled. It may
> sound harsh and so I'm open to revert that back to your way.

Yay, the old way was definitely a hack.
 
> Sage: may you let me handle the packaging for Debian and Ubuntu? So you
> can find more time working on ceph itself as it has some inconsistency
> as well. Binaries without manpages like cephfs and radosacl ; somewhere
> the manpage contains an example which is not a valid command (at least
> in v0.23 , it passed midnight and now I can't remember which one is it).

Whatever you think would work best.  I would like to keep the debian/ 
files in some form or another (although whether they live in ceph.git is 
an open question) since I build packages for sid, squeeze, and lenny for 
the ceph.newdream.net site, and would like to do so immediately when a 
release is made.  But if you can handle the packaging changes and 
uploading to debian that would (continue to be) helpful.  Or if the 
packaging stuff is managed by you separately, but still available 
somewhere for me pull and build my packages against.  What do you suggest?

> Are you sure that ceph should depend on hdparm? What if my box has SCSI,
> SAS or other disk that isn't [sP]ATA? Yes, there's sdparm, but do you
> use it directly from ceph? Should it be a recommendation instead?

Currently it's only used by os/FileJournal.cc to check for a journal on a 
block device with write caching off.  This is only a problem for kernels 
prior to 2.6.33 (which unfortunately includes squeeze!), so I'm inclined 
to keep it for now.  In any case, though, the code fails gracefully if 
it's not found, so a recommendation would work.  And yeah, it doesn't try 
sdparm if hdparm doesn't do the trick.  But it catches most administrator 
error as is, which is the goal.

> If others agree, I'll upload it in some days. It'll sit into the NEW
> queue and may take a while to be officially accepted.

Great!  There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2 
first, if it isn't too much trouble.  I can do that today.  

Clint, do you see any remaining issues I should fix first?

Thanks!
sage

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 01 Dec 2010 05:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #183 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Sage,

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Sage: may you let me handle the packaging for Debian and Ubuntu? [...]
> Whatever you think would work best.  I would like to keep the debian/ 
> files in some form or another (although whether they live in ceph.git is 
> an open question) since I build packages for sid, squeeze, and lenny for 
> the ceph.newdream.net site, and would like to do so immediately when a 
> release is made.  But if you can handle the packaging changes and 
> uploading to debian that would (continue to be) helpful.  Or if the 
> packaging stuff is managed by you separately, but still available 
> somewhere for me pull and build my packages against.  What do you suggest?
 It's not an easy situation as its packaging goes on three way. First is
yours, to make it up-to-date quickly as new release happens. The other
two is for Debian and Ubuntu. Divergency will be minimum, expect
debian/changelog I think. Still it would be good to use quilt format for
packaging[1].
On the other hand, do you really need so fast package release cycles?
Usually I'm fast and active, still you'll lose at least a day or two
waiting on me for release an updated package. I don't know Clint, but he
seems to be active as well. Also I may apply for a per-package Ubuntu
upload rights which means I can upload the package simultaneously to
Debian and Ubuntu. This would help users in two ways: they don't need to
look for and setup an external package pool (Debian and Ubuntu already
have a backports archive) and ceph would be consistent on all archs
(backports have autobuild on all archs, including but not limited to
alpha, mips, sparc, s390).

Only one question remains, if we go three way packaging, how should we
version our package versions? Yours should have a priority, but official
backports from me and Clint should override it. I propose that your
version number should be upstream_version-[123...] and ours should be
upstream_version-[123...][lenny|squeeze|maverick][123...]. Clint?

[ about hdparm dependency ]
> Currently it's only used by os/FileJournal.cc to check for a journal on a 
> block device with write caching off.
 Would it be hard to get this info by yourself somehow?
Please note that I'm not a security expert, but as I see you create your
temp file in a very deterministic way. What if I'm evil and I make a
symlink named as your soon-to-be tempfile to a system binary / file?
Of course I see that you test for root (euid == 0) and if not, you don't
run hdparm. It's not a set[ug]id binary (I mean ceph), so we are safe as
normal user really can't start it.

> This is only a problem for kernels 
> prior to 2.6.33 (which unfortunately includes squeeze!), so I'm inclined 
> to keep it for now. [...]
 OK, it can remain as a dependency for user safety.

> Great!  There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2 
> first, if it isn't too much trouble.  I can do that today.
 We can wait for the release to be safe. Some more days to upload it
doesn't make the world.

> Clint, do you see any remaining issues I should fix first?
 He prompted for checking upgrades of previous ceph versions to this
one on Ubuntu Maverick. Don't know how it goes, today I'll check it
myself as well.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/10/21/the-secret-plan-behind-the-3-0-quilt-debian-source-package-format/

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:42:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #188 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Sage,

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> Great!  There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2 
> first, if it isn't too much trouble.  I can do that today.
 I've found the manpage problem that I've noted before. It's about
monmaptool, the CLI says it's usage:
[--print] [--create [--clobber]] [--add name 1.2.3.4:567] [--rm name] <mapfilename>
But the manpage states this as an example:
monmaptool --create --add 192.168.0.10:6789 --add 192.168.0.11:6789 --add 192.168.0.12:6789 --clobber monmap
This definitely misses 'name' after the 'add' switch, resulting:
"invalid ip:port '--add'" as an error message. Attached patch fixes this
inconsistency.

> Clint, do you see any remaining issues I should fix first?
 Just for the record, I have tested ceph on Ubuntu Maverick. It builds
fine and upgrades from the previous version in the archive.
Clint is lost somewhere :-( , but I think everything is OK from his side
as well. So what if I would step in for being the packager of ceph both
in Debian and Ubuntu? Sage can contact me before he makes a release, I
adjust the packaging if necessary and he can roll out packages
immediately. I recheck them and if they are OK, I make the upload to the
archives. All I need is a commit right to the debian/ subdir in the git
tree of ceph.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[monmaptool_man.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:15:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #193 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Laszlo,

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Sage,
> 
> On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:21 -0800, Sage Weil wrote:
> > Great!  There are a handful of bug fixes I'd like to roll into v0.23.2 
> > first, if it isn't too much trouble.  I can do that today.
>  I've found the manpage problem that I've noted before. It's about
> monmaptool, the CLI says it's usage:
> [--print] [--create [--clobber]] [--add name 1.2.3.4:567] [--rm name] <mapfilename>
> But the manpage states this as an example:
> monmaptool --create --add 192.168.0.10:6789 --add 192.168.0.11:6789 --add 192.168.0.12:6789 --clobber monmap
> This definitely misses 'name' after the 'add' switch, resulting:
> "invalid ip:port '--add'" as an error message. Attached patch fixes this
> inconsistency.

Applied, thanks!

> > Clint, do you see any remaining issues I should fix first?
>  Just for the record, I have tested ceph on Ubuntu Maverick. It builds
> fine and upgrades from the previous version in the archive.
> Clint is lost somewhere :-( , but I think everything is OK from his side
> as well. So what if I would step in for being the packager of ceph both
> in Debian and Ubuntu? Sage can contact me before he makes a release, I
> adjust the packaging if necessary and he can roll out packages
> immediately. I recheck them and if they are OK, I make the upload to the
> archives. All I need is a commit right to the debian/ subdir in the git
> tree of ceph.

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 can also set you up with push access to update the 
debian/ stuff at your leisure without sending patches over the list.

(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...)

sage

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:33:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #198 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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 can also set you up with push access to update the 
> debian/ stuff at your leisure without sending patches over the list.
 Would be easier with push rights for debian/ if you trust me. I've my
GnuPG key that you can check with any local or nearby Debian
Developer(s) that I'm in the web of trust.

> (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.
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. 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.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
[2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
[3] http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
[4] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/neon27/current/copyright

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #203 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

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@lists.debian.org/msg14110.html

Acknowledgement sent to Clint Byrum <clint@ubuntu.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Thu, 02 Dec 2010 07:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #208 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:

> 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

I don't see where this is a hard requirement in the reject faq.
Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
with COPYING, then there's no need for a license header. I DO think its
a good idea to have a Copyright header in every file, but thats also
probably ok to have in an AUTHORS file or something like that.

> in cephfs.cc , cfuse.cc , etc; but missing in barclass.cc , cconf.cc ,
> cls_acl.cc and in others. 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.
> 

Laszlo, I did a thorough review of the licensing before working to get
ceph uploaded to Ubuntu, but I wasn't aware of the incompatibility
between the GPL/LGPL and OpenSSL. This page details it pretty well:

http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html

Sage, I'd guess that you can work on getting an OK from the other
authors on adding an exception. I've opened a bug against CEPH in ubuntu
here:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ceph/+bug/684011

Sage, if you can please update that bug's status when you have secured
an exception, that would be ideal, as I'm going to mark it as Critical,
so we'll probably have to drop ceph from Natty if there's no resolution
before the release, and consider dropping it from Maverick as well.

Also Sage, if the other authors (or you) are not comfortable with the
OpenSSL advertising clause, there's always GNUTLS which exists in large
part to address this sort of thing.

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:00:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #213 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint,

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:19 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
> with COPYING, then there's no need for a license header.
 Got a confirmation from an FTP Assistant, Mike O'Connor; he says
exactly the same. "Its not required, for instance, that every
single .h .c file etc have a license information, as long as it can be
reasonably assumed that we know the copyright holders' intention. When
the upstream author says "i'm the copyright holder for everything in the
src directory, and its distributable under the LGPL, we'll assume this
to be correct unless there is something that indicates otherwise."
I just have a memory that recently a package was rejected due to this,
but I assume it neither had the license information in
debian/copyright .

> Laszlo, I did a thorough review of the licensing before working to get
> ceph uploaded to Ubuntu, but I wasn't aware of the incompatibility
> between the GPL/LGPL and OpenSSL. This page details it pretty well:
> 
> http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
 Please note two things. First is the bottom line of the page which
says: "Usual disclaimers apply, I've no legal background whatsoever,
don't trust a word I say ... I'm quite probably completely wrong." and
it was written in 2004. More recently, three months ago a bug was
filed[1] in Debian that states there's indeed a need for that license
exception for a GPL programs.
 On the other hand, yes, I do realize that ceph is mostly LGPL which may
or may not need this exception. Just found a conversation on
debian-legal, where the second message[2] states: "There is no need for
an OpenSSL exception for a LGPL-licensed work."; thus I'm ready to
upload ceph as soon as the two missing manpages are written.

> Also Sage, if the other authors (or you) are not comfortable with the
> OpenSSL advertising clause, there's always GNUTLS which exists in large
> part to address this sort of thing.
 Rewrite the SSL part may not be that easy, but see above that it seems
it's not needed for LGPL sources.

Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=595446
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/06/msg00007.html

Acknowledgement sent to Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub <yehudasa@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sat, 04 Dec 2010 06:06:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #218 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu> wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 23:19 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:30 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>> Essentially, as long as the files don't have a license that conflicts
>> with COPYING, then there's no need for a license header.
>  Got a confirmation from an FTP Assistant, Mike O'Connor; he says
> exactly the same. "Its not required, for instance, that every
> single .h .c file etc have a license information, as long as it can be
> reasonably assumed that we know the copyright holders' intention. When
> the upstream author says "i'm the copyright holder for everything in the
> src directory, and its distributable under the LGPL, we'll assume this
> to be correct unless there is something that indicates otherwise."
> I just have a memory that recently a package was rejected due to this,
> but I assume it neither had the license information in
> debian/copyright .
>
>> Laszlo, I did a thorough review of the licensing before working to get
>> ceph uploaded to Ubuntu, but I wasn't aware of the incompatibility
>> between the GPL/LGPL and OpenSSL. This page details it pretty well:
>>
>> http://people.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
>  Please note two things. First is the bottom line of the page which
> says: "Usual disclaimers apply, I've no legal background whatsoever,
> don't trust a word I say ... I'm quite probably completely wrong." and
> it was written in 2004. More recently, three months ago a bug was
> filed[1] in Debian that states there's indeed a need for that license
> exception for a GPL programs.
>  On the other hand, yes, I do realize that ceph is mostly LGPL which may
> or may not need this exception. Just found a conversation on
> debian-legal, where the second message[2] states: "There is no need for
> an OpenSSL exception for a LGPL-licensed work."; thus I'm ready to
> upload ceph as soon as the two missing manpages are written.
>
>> Also Sage, if the other authors (or you) are not comfortable with the
>> OpenSSL advertising clause, there's always GNUTLS which exists in large
>> part to address this sort of thing.
>  Rewrite the SSL part may not be that easy, but see above that it seems
> it's not needed for LGPL sources.

I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now moot. It's all
pushed to the ceph rc branch. I tried using gnutls, but it didn't
quite fit ceph's needs (only requires a few lower level crypto
functions and it seems that gnutls hasn't exported those up until
recently or at least I haven't found an easy way to do this).
IANAL but for my untrained eyes the crypto++ seems ok in terms of GPL
compatibility. Although most of ceph's code is LGPL, we do have a
couple of utilities that are licensed as GPL and might pose a license
conflict, so removing openssl seems the best road to choose.

Yehuda

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:57:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #223 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Sage, Yehuda,

On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
[ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ]
> I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
> with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now moot. It's all
> pushed to the ceph rc branch.
 Does it mean that I shouldn't upload v0.23.2 [1] to Debian? Wait for
the v0.24.0 release and upload that one? I know v0.23.2 is not even
noted as a release on the homepage, but tagged in the git tree.
Main changes are that debian/source/format is re-added, the tree cleaned
as make distclean, backported cephfs.8 manpage as a patch, pristine
clean the source, noted myself as maintainer while Sage remains as an
uploader.

Laszlo/GCS
Ps: Please delete parts of the email that not relevant to the
conversation.
[1] dget http://www.routers.hu/gcs/ceph_0.23.2-1.dsc

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Sun, 05 Dec 2010 05:09:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sun, 05 Dec 2010 05:09:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #228 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hey Laszlo,

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:02 -0800, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote:
> [ about OpenSSL license exception for ceph ]
> > I removed all the openssl references in the ceph code and replaced it
> > with crypto++, so hopefully all this discussion is now moot. It's all
> > pushed to the ceph rc branch.
>  Does it mean that I shouldn't upload v0.23.2 [1] to Debian? Wait for
> the v0.24.0 release and upload that one? I know v0.23.2 is not even
> noted as a release on the homepage, but tagged in the git tree.
> Main changes are that debian/source/format is re-added, the tree cleaned
> as make distclean, backported cephfs.8 manpage as a patch, pristine
> clean the source, noted myself as maintainer while Sage remains as an
> uploader.

Yeah, let's just wait for 0.24.  BTW, I made radosacl only build 
--with-debug; it can be dropped from the package.

Thanks-
sage


> 
> Laszlo/GCS
> Ps: Please delete parts of the email that not relevant to the
> conversation.
> [1] dget http://www.routers.hu/gcs/ceph_0.23.2-1.dsc
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug#506040; Package wnpp. (Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:12:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Asheesh Laroia <asheesh@asheesh.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:12:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #233 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

I have nothing to contribute to this, except:

Thanks to Sage and Clint for pinging us again!

And thanks to Laszlo for his excellent review and packaging work.

I'm happy to stay CC:d so I can keep track of this lovely packaging 
process!

-- Asheesh.

Added tag(s) pending. Request was from Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 26 Dec 2010 07:06:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #240 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Sat, 2010-12-18 at 22:08 -0500, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> I have nothing to contribute to this, except:
> 
> Thanks to Sage and Clint for pinging us again!
> 

Here's another ping.

Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
good to get CEPH into that NEW queue ASAP.

I'm a little unclear where any additional packaging changes reside, but
I've gone ahead and packaged 0.24.2 for Ubuntu, it is here:

https://code.launchpad.net/~clint-fewbar/ubuntu/natty/ceph/upstream-0.24

Note a few changes for policy v3.9.1 including removing the .la files
from the -dev libs.

Acknowledgement sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi <gcs@debian.hu>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>. (Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:12:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #245 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Hi Clint,

On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
> hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
> good to get CEPH into that NEW queue ASAP.
 Please don't get me wrong, but did you check the NEW queue? I've
uploaded ceph there[1] for more than two months. It's not processed yet,
but I hope that the backlog of the queue is going to shrink as Squeeze
is out.

> I'm a little unclear where any additional packaging changes reside, but
> I've gone ahead and packaged 0.24.2 for Ubuntu, it is here:
 I've also packaged it a while ago and also uploaded to the NEW
queue[2].

> Note a few changes for policy v3.9.1 including removing the .la files
> from the -dev libs.
 Well, it's not entirely true. The exact wording[3] says "[...] For
public libraries intended for use by other packages, these files
normally should not be included in the Debian package, since the
information they include is not necessary to link with the shared
library on Debian and can add unnecessary additional dependencies to
other programs or libraries. [...]". Of course please read the whole
paragraph.
In short, it's not 'you must remove all *.la files'; but yes, I should
remove them as well. I hope I can check your packages today and may
write an other mail.

Cheers,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/ceph_0.24-1.html
[2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/ceph_0.24.2-1.html
[3] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-libraries

Message #250 received at 506040@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 20:09 +0100, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Clint,
> 
> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 10:26 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Seeing as squeeze is out, and the NEW queue is, as I understand it,
> > hundreds and hundreds of packages long right now, it would probably be
> > good to get CEPH into that NEW queue ASAP.
>  Please don't get me wrong, but did you check the NEW queue? I've
> uploaded ceph there[1] for more than two months. It's not processed yet,
> but I hope that the backlog of the queue is going to shrink as Squeeze
> is out.
> 

Ah! I did not. That is good to see then. :)

> > I'm a little unclear where any additional packaging changes reside, but
> > I've gone ahead and packaged 0.24.2 for Ubuntu, it is here:
>  I've also packaged it a while ago and also uploaded to the NEW
> queue[2].
> 
> > Note a few changes for policy v3.9.1 including removing the .la files
> > from the -dev libs.
>  Well, it's not entirely true. The exact wording[3] says "[...] For
> public libraries intended for use by other packages, these files
> normally should not be included in the Debian package, since the
> information they include is not necessary to link with the shared
> library on Debian and can add unnecessary additional dependencies to
> other programs or libraries. [...]". Of course please read the whole
> paragraph.
> In short, it's not 'you must remove all *.la files'; but yes, I should
> remove them as well. I hope I can check your packages today and may
> write an other mail.
> 

Right, its not a must but a should. Still, this seems reason enough to
leave them out.

Since the license issue is critical, I'm going to go ahead and leave the
ubuntu package up for sponsorship so the bug is closed ASAP.

Once your packages clear the debian queue, it should be easy enough to
issue a sync request to override the -0ubuntu1 packages.

Reply sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Notification sent to Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #255 received at 506040-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Source: ceph
Source-Version: 0.24-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ceph, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
ceph-client-tools_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-client-tools_0.24-1_amd64.deb
ceph-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
ceph-fuse_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-fuse_0.24-1_amd64.deb
ceph_0.24-1.diff.gz
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24-1.diff.gz
ceph_0.24-1.dsc
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24-1.dsc
ceph_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24-1_amd64.deb
ceph_0.24.orig.tar.gz
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.orig.tar.gz
libceph1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
libceph1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
libceph1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
librados1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
librados1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
librados1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
radosgw-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/radosgw-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
radosgw_0.24-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/radosgw_0.24-1_amd64.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 506040@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu> (supplier of updated ceph package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:26:25 -0800
Source: ceph
Binary: ceph ceph-dbg ceph-fuse ceph-fuse-dbg ceph-client-tools ceph-client-tools-dbg libcrush1 libcrush1-dbg libcrush1-dev librados1 librados1-dbg librados1-dev libceph1 libceph1-dbg libceph1-dev radosgw radosgw-dbg
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.24-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
Changed-By: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
Description: 
 ceph       - distributed storage and file system
 ceph-client-tools - utilities to mount a ceph filesystem with the kernel client
 ceph-client-tools-dbg - debugging symbols for ceph-client-tools
 ceph-dbg   - debugging symbols for ceph
 ceph-fuse  - FUSE-based client for the Ceph distributed file system
 ceph-fuse-dbg - debugging symbols for ceph-fuse
 libceph1   - Ceph distributed file system client library
 libceph1-dbg - debugging symbols for libceph1
 libceph1-dev - Ceph distributed file system client library (development files)
 libcrush1  - CRUSH placement algorithm
 libcrush1-dbg - debugging symbols for libcrush1
 libcrush1-dev - CRUSH mapping algorithm (development files)
 librados1  - RADOS distributed object store client library
 librados1-dbg - debugging symbols for librados1
 librados1-dev - RADOS distributed object store client library (development files)
 radosgw    - REST gateway for RADOS distributed object store
 radosgw-dbg - debugging symbols for radosgw
Closes: 506040
Changes: 
 ceph (0.24-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release.
 .
 ceph (0.23.1-1) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * Initial release (Closes: #506040)
Checksums-Sha1: 
 5db323eba295c0949843e53c86c53483aad2ae80 1542 ceph_0.24-1.dsc
 e9507db0a785ca269b53228d5bd3af5b9ddd8308 1530155 ceph_0.24.orig.tar.gz
 f3a38aabc0d211d73b624d582ee76ad058a2eb18 5502 ceph_0.24-1.diff.gz
 3e886be76cff215d4bcdc78141a5089cea9c2bb3 5045452 ceph_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 2f4f0a1bb5358b4566e44af06357512a4a4e661f 33171958 ceph-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 03fffacaa556d1f33ccb4487fbbe2699c9cd2d7f 772520 ceph-fuse_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 2e7776e1208b72cd55cd3ba4ffb74f0e1493272f 4811496 ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 a5722ffc7cb5424786c76e265587fe825091c1f2 916016 ceph-client-tools_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 0c39ba3a67964be4ace8a51fcf0d277ebec51a3e 5343066 ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 43d68f95fa371d50d7f1fd1f09c226789ad55c0d 13398 libcrush1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 cf3b60a4b9d8cfecfdfd94d84b7fa83602eeacda 20700 libcrush1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 a1a85868accd45cc410cea7093da9b0baeae66e1 35484 libcrush1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 ed99909d00ac919b25dbf1354422ae18820ad67d 614704 librados1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 484b34c354b77c01de83494afb8cc99a71c1e363 3878066 librados1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 689972f6c6ef2141075793da820a24ec7c1ae7fd 7399458 librados1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 62960ca84a4de8eb0c64fa1c5975258bc1669d45 871680 libceph1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 343660e9aead8c3961d65a27d7ee318d68ccbf92 5181732 libceph1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 f67176d126984bcc99dabe7effa48092878b939c 9992532 libceph1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 24df61ce873386b6e4ed5d9d6fd32ddc131282fb 1210946 radosgw_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 f493f2e802be53fadf21c66f1059598f52b9eb31 7692584 radosgw-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 6db4bb751bfd097dd8471e42aa8e53f4225325d63f3c09be7f2a31460bb9968e 1542 ceph_0.24-1.dsc
 07568a5b907f0425c68e837a04f59c355302d12f68f3f2e2966547b3c740a8f2 1530155 ceph_0.24.orig.tar.gz
 783305b56d830ecd46754ffe0132d6ee535cba5410431d4bb010c015146f5192 5502 ceph_0.24-1.diff.gz
 01bd9147f4956354b6b487e89edc0e39c66a3a251a14932ae2a925eef4a09c1b 5045452 ceph_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 76a56426c7d796235ff34aedf3fa714aab4e91f22794184de9c03a6d3744c3ce 33171958 ceph-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 45928af27afdfd49adcb0b01d9bde15928597a2c76b10a6e9db20ed50159c0c9 772520 ceph-fuse_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 90db20a751b17322e9cf342f5f5a10d37778225b4a10d9b3be34f186d6c46fe4 4811496 ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 8eb9d1548f9a594dce4e3e71b1cc58a998880628b618b0212fe3333f8a3eef04 916016 ceph-client-tools_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 e9d5cba1ed331796e6f7600de43f3197482938ddb0129dac4fabf122b6afbd93 5343066 ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 c0f4e993d34cb3833917886457e4162bf493d28be4c1441e05c20ccba01f8ee1 13398 libcrush1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 94d466f9e140e678d97db502f24099eef16f1cb4e145829de5cd6f9d99679d96 20700 libcrush1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 40ac4aff7d83e2046dbe210b480bf09faa3878ee4bdca7bbbb789850857ac1d4 35484 libcrush1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 6e9d2cfa36a28fe53ec27adf82cffc8da8c1db8d1d8ebd0b34f2aceb6c3e684b 614704 librados1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 4b5998ff75d1737b11aae45141af154522d6f555b3ca11015ed4c1bbb04a8828 3878066 librados1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 5640bac42e4f235c17b3f72c77a569e748ea1db4f259f5e7249dac43273193fe 7399458 librados1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 dc5e76284cd73e986b73b07b6b9c2c14ceda2bc442062330054711f3c38e6ec9 871680 libceph1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 eee6070c24a7e5b693d2e9fe0b27fd9b2a1d3dcb37d20aa84c09094d45ef37da 5181732 libceph1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 83607eeb22b5a728822135f7e73e21acc3e3d7866f591b9cbfc3117f1b4f75b5 9992532 libceph1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 4e024416210a90128b3faebe6579f30a3bd3b9a2b9fccf170c8dc0eba33f79c2 1210946 radosgw_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 3f56ce5cac0d91bda8c21260ba936a2e512c30ddf0686e649edcdedcff204f83 7692584 radosgw-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
Files: 
 c6dcad9cf258bbc0231c1986fc05db53 1542 admin optional ceph_0.24-1.dsc
 8d376afac7c62774bc6f425abf83638e 1530155 admin optional ceph_0.24.orig.tar.gz
 8d15ab11b246f820f4b889dcaf1f80f1 5502 admin optional ceph_0.24-1.diff.gz
 377e78010d2956150dec80fb988dd1f1 5045452 admin optional ceph_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 a4a92d3e40710b8006270cf96c3818b9 33171958 debug extra ceph-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 fe17afcbdeaaf4361df138003907a528 772520 admin optional ceph-fuse_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 79639aa7a93763da5ae03fc356056fd2 4811496 debug extra ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 e7c969bb516f2c72c751b55286884915 916016 admin optional ceph-client-tools_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 3db1fa3f9f1c2b22ad804493d1d5b4a9 5343066 debug extra ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 8ce28babfe52b29fbe57e03340175c60 13398 admin optional libcrush1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 0bd9b204e48d5f79e59f00d4e3f18f54 20700 debug extra libcrush1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 beb9f14073e609e808b35c5d684de291 35484 libdevel optional libcrush1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 b57aff396ad7f3d848054dea4a2c372f 614704 admin optional librados1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 7468e5bdbfbc248e12a2fc4e6ef75ca7 3878066 debug extra librados1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 5593c352939e5fbc6c1445c33870d5cc 7399458 libdevel optional librados1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 fec335e40115769739249225b043c6eb 871680 admin optional libceph1_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 ce6c4388a90276bd37e33ad42c9c3da0 5181732 debug extra libceph1-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 4005e6dcd5c32ca44756e58e37c56f30 9992532 libdevel optional libceph1-dev_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 cc6bdad563413601e159e54f09ede857 1210946 admin optional radosgw_0.24-1_amd64.deb
 f7561525de66dbfe59d962a4ee6e99b8 7692584 debug extra radosgw-dbg_0.24-1_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk0WQJMACgkQMDatjqUaT90TfQCfUNQ2Jtt0WmZjIbh2bR5U9WUK
YRcAnj2CXpmigY/SVVPe8loT4m7df1r4
=gOG7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:21:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Notification sent to Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:21:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #260 received at 506040-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Source: ceph
Source-Version: 0.24.1-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ceph, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
ceph-client-tools_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-client-tools_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
ceph-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
ceph-fuse_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-fuse_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
ceph_0.24.1-1.diff.gz
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.1-1.diff.gz
ceph_0.24.1-1.dsc
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.1-1.dsc
ceph_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
ceph_0.24.1.orig.tar.gz
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.1.orig.tar.gz
libceph1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
libceph1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
libceph1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
librados1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
librados1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
librados1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
radosgw-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/radosgw-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
radosgw_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/radosgw_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 506040@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu> (supplier of updated ceph package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:23:18 +0100
Source: ceph
Binary: ceph ceph-dbg ceph-fuse ceph-fuse-dbg ceph-client-tools ceph-client-tools-dbg libcrush1 libcrush1-dbg libcrush1-dev librados1 librados1-dbg librados1-dev libceph1 libceph1-dbg libceph1-dev radosgw radosgw-dbg
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.24.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
Changed-By: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
Description: 
 ceph       - distributed storage and file system
 ceph-client-tools - utilities to mount a ceph filesystem with the kernel client
 ceph-client-tools-dbg - debugging symbols for ceph-client-tools
 ceph-dbg   - debugging symbols for ceph
 ceph-fuse  - FUSE-based client for the Ceph distributed file system
 ceph-fuse-dbg - debugging symbols for ceph-fuse
 libceph1   - Ceph distributed file system client library
 libceph1-dbg - debugging symbols for libceph1
 libceph1-dev - Ceph distributed file system client library (development files)
 libcrush1  - CRUSH placement algorithm
 libcrush1-dbg - debugging symbols for libcrush1
 libcrush1-dev - CRUSH mapping algorithm (development files)
 librados1  - RADOS distributed object store client library
 librados1-dbg - debugging symbols for librados1
 librados1-dev - RADOS distributed object store client library (development files)
 radosgw    - REST gateway for RADOS distributed object store
 radosgw-dbg - debugging symbols for radosgw
Closes: 506040
Changes: 
 ceph (0.24.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream bugfix release.
 .
 ceph (0.24-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release.
 .
 ceph (0.23.1-1) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * Initial release (Closes: #506040)
Checksums-Sha1: 
 909514aa39f62321e1a1605344e58bfefa20a8cb 1556 ceph_0.24.1-1.dsc
 840c82b7d760ad87128371c750c95d84c631b1b2 1530486 ceph_0.24.1.orig.tar.gz
 ca0652420ee3ab96bd797090909ad6c291b401cb 5565 ceph_0.24.1-1.diff.gz
 57348368aaf1d79dfb4d456e2983c9484a71e066 5048508 ceph_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 ce9d57568418643ccceeac217b9cadf2a480a34e 33175028 ceph-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 7367fa76acf7bb5c9cecc558fa1aaa99f5ed914f 773110 ceph-fuse_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 479798ee6a98ba5fa51ec75473c62af20c95b631 4812848 ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 fcd4001d3614b07ef6a63d81666ecf804a9f6535 916830 ceph-client-tools_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 e56bf29b1f11c413f3f4852279201255aa6db507 5344550 ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 f6e1f5d01231b7e9c72ff5807f61295f68320c85 13438 libcrush1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 5424d8b0bc77e2bc9a187480c8d18ddb610438d6 20746 libcrush1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 ab0e1fd0cf7644ac6e388b080019dc0a1a560ec9 35522 libcrush1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 8910a2674db42988db05fe8ec30023dff58f6993 614798 librados1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 96a0cb089df8ac09e82ff326052131d5161783dd 3878012 librados1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 9deec6fb7c4d43bf45a130823178a45f54796c8e 7402752 librados1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 1866040377688ec1a157bb6c8f9a8c13d93d5511 871674 libceph1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 b3a264db9a625c8f043c1a1f3d1cb2b5088684c7 5182120 libceph1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 bd36cb7d8d70cfb815d396cf35e6c69799afadd5 9994270 libceph1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 d0a2421c78c72218e96275fe79adecc107af83d2 1212142 radosgw_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 8aefe1b89dfef43c5a75c752d6e854a906e2069f 7694102 radosgw-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 d3a68e8d816f632c558a4dbddee37582e94eee024a73f2f5d35d96f11502d2a7 1556 ceph_0.24.1-1.dsc
 f601d94b309743c3e0c9576e00f445f06ded3c20f840aebc67825c155b67cfbf 1530486 ceph_0.24.1.orig.tar.gz
 da3a398b499071142fd823d56e6ad763e87a82a2df50d9e5abac20e85ac93ebe 5565 ceph_0.24.1-1.diff.gz
 7627580519a7d791124260818641f59630649e89a83e07729e67bcfd801afa1c 5048508 ceph_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 e68cacc2419518a58568371fd810ce3adf1a892c185c6f804037fd41d642ebdc 33175028 ceph-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 a27c819d3ad5bfd70738eae9ddb2528ea911620f601a341bd0799ce0f5f965b3 773110 ceph-fuse_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 6c3ce5ea2362b49478d5657988dc8df9d08f13224294606b275c5304c90dd588 4812848 ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 43285db728f6ee806f664fb620637cd14c05abc9ffd7d158805edf2441ce8059 916830 ceph-client-tools_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 4fd70c92d350892e74c5a67c1de1fbac0b1f5d0194c567288cea519a73556ba2 5344550 ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 7d6df21a378297ca09bd5a7fe9154ba44dfab61e17f48bfa26eb0dc7e1da1a9a 13438 libcrush1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 3e18f28bd16cf0d798a8f0e103dba9bec1406c7b04532330d559ffa57cdb9cb4 20746 libcrush1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 45ed78361a268e1d8a00c345a5b8e92fb4c4dca8d3bd7983129407b11e80560d 35522 libcrush1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 5ae0aec59a9ecb355d188ce4fb256f408eb7b2a8d1b1a67c1c823f08e80ea748 614798 librados1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 97dda36394786ea13039f7c7aedd65bfebd96166c152e406209ba14d668fadba 3878012 librados1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 94df518ab043d09cfe4c2987a7000ad2546bbcb0d4c7fc2c7c6e10ff46fa5b1b 7402752 librados1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 caf85c300fb51f2f772394ad73dcab47f4da8f6362e7ee6c06c466987481f08f 871674 libceph1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 7c1efe6d2671523f83b3be11093944447997012fad05e18dc2ccabc75d7bc509 5182120 libceph1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 411761e34eba44081aedc15084c6766a39baed03e643ec31b2c2bd5c91c1fa23 9994270 libceph1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 abcd1ed2667e9d6c7f95d99b9a171f1c30b98d52bc749cad68531f4933881fef 1212142 radosgw_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 561bb4e99b1e4a674f0b0950ed839433578853c42eeba515b04461e75da506fe 7694102 radosgw-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
Files: 
 76b4fb5f24511899cfe532855caf8ac2 1556 admin optional ceph_0.24.1-1.dsc
 1e799347caeeff639cd95e9599a5e5b1 1530486 admin optional ceph_0.24.1.orig.tar.gz
 84d59227a464eeea51052ed3a1f468b0 5565 admin optional ceph_0.24.1-1.diff.gz
 fcb0044e66846b830090b17340b37e3d 5048508 admin optional ceph_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 b9f52d1c9712dcd374e2edd378919f49 33175028 debug extra ceph-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 49956205a3373df4ffbb764a4dfdf75e 773110 admin optional ceph-fuse_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 b8798873034bacfecb4ad4e3fb9defbf 4812848 debug extra ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 7f18674e7b3614d7e95c40ae90c55876 916830 admin optional ceph-client-tools_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 be029140dbd277244cbacff20b4bff14 5344550 debug extra ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 0d84dc85d1aae5c771ba022a767c6178 13438 admin optional libcrush1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 89c18cb5f5273ad628458ea408569e9d 20746 debug extra libcrush1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 729b3748d72bc9ffb0c3c1561cf86a6f 35522 libdevel optional libcrush1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 161eee37707e56370fd4f23f4e82b277 614798 admin optional librados1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 75f50b3d24d96dc143ec11c3a04483dd 3878012 debug extra librados1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 b11323ff5698e07562c35649805d5673 7402752 libdevel optional librados1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 b1dd52c36c292f5aff95c444fdcd9910 871674 admin optional libceph1_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 d1b802d31ef9ad6cbf71426d87a3f591 5182120 debug extra libceph1-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 e09603b9bf6555079789a1ed7bd28591 9994270 libdevel optional libceph1-dev_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 37004efb7d382c826ab41c5aec21037c 1212142 admin optional radosgw_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb
 89bf22cb9bf5d6f0519366e9d5dd67b9 7694102 debug extra radosgw-dbg_0.24.1-1_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEUEARECAAYFAk0uL68ACgkQMDatjqUaT90ZfwCfTWWMpLo1c83HnuvG66FH2erR
riQAl1BH8s4R49QA2YewMEdO+Pkd6pE=
=bEMO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply sent to Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:21:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Notification sent to Christian Meder <chris@absolutegiganten.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:21:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #265 received at 506040-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Source: ceph
Source-Version: 0.24.2-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ceph, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
ceph-client-tools_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-client-tools_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
ceph-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
ceph-fuse_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph-fuse_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
ceph_0.24.2-1.diff.gz
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.2-1.diff.gz
ceph_0.24.2-1.dsc
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.2-1.dsc
ceph_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
ceph_0.24.2.orig.tar.gz
  to main/c/ceph/ceph_0.24.2.orig.tar.gz
libceph1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
libceph1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
libceph1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libceph1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
libcrush1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/libcrush1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
librados1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
librados1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
librados1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/librados1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
radosgw-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/radosgw-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
radosgw_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
  to main/c/ceph/radosgw_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 506040@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu> (supplier of updated ceph package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:25:14 +0100
Source: ceph
Binary: ceph ceph-dbg ceph-fuse ceph-fuse-dbg ceph-client-tools ceph-client-tools-dbg libcrush1 libcrush1-dbg libcrush1-dev librados1 librados1-dbg librados1-dev libceph1 libceph1-dbg libceph1-dev radosgw radosgw-dbg
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 0.24.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
Changed-By: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
Description: 
 ceph       - distributed storage and file system
 ceph-client-tools - utilities to mount a ceph filesystem with the kernel client
 ceph-client-tools-dbg - debugging symbols for ceph-client-tools
 ceph-dbg   - debugging symbols for ceph
 ceph-fuse  - FUSE-based client for the Ceph distributed file system
 ceph-fuse-dbg - debugging symbols for ceph-fuse
 libceph1   - Ceph distributed file system client library
 libceph1-dbg - debugging symbols for libceph1
 libceph1-dev - Ceph distributed file system client library (development files)
 libcrush1  - CRUSH placement algorithm
 libcrush1-dbg - debugging symbols for libcrush1
 libcrush1-dev - CRUSH mapping algorithm (development files)
 librados1  - RADOS distributed object store client library
 librados1-dbg - debugging symbols for librados1
 librados1-dev - RADOS distributed object store client library (development files)
 radosgw    - REST gateway for RADOS distributed object store
 radosgw-dbg - debugging symbols for radosgw
Closes: 506040
Changes: 
 ceph (0.24.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream bugfix release.
 .
 ceph (0.24.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream bugfix release.
 .
 ceph (0.24-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New upstream release.
 .
 ceph (0.23.1-1) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * Initial release (Closes: #506040)
Checksums-Sha1: 
 ad53a3565a7a9b04a8a4d842b061913496e88c3c 1556 ceph_0.24.2-1.dsc
 efe25cedf585b04a7199c9965c033c2e8ab94ffe 1533336 ceph_0.24.2.orig.tar.gz
 df4c2baacbd83a0ec971b103945b4e7c36ba00db 5605 ceph_0.24.2-1.diff.gz
 da224aebf24c53e1f025fcb3366b1bc914d9e3f5 5013566 ceph_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 d89f2365103af3f94c5c380023a5bcd860fe3cd6 33219248 ceph-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 1d80b3a464e1d184f5995935d7d5b13aa1e435e6 776882 ceph-fuse_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 f3da963e55bb75abaa4290d53a158e2216ece7de 4852668 ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 8bc6fe8d41055ec7fb2d18efd73e62cc3534dcaa 919674 ceph-client-tools_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 258010b08d0bea4db46a5d8919aa2c9c224e8687 5387172 ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 f6e49d2a347db5d066834fafcce7cf0c7c0cba80 13464 libcrush1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 3dccea0b17caee504da8ac125eed8ce21c3dfd46 20774 libcrush1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 f5a67a5e968f63837882a05753b3263bc12acb34 35556 libcrush1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 bf901c595ec78930262f2215c9800caec79c9710 616354 librados1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2898fa4a3e2afa854016744d93fcf3d1cf4abc78 3907064 librados1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 51905fa89373a8d4e61cca0ad1f60cc0d2a1e72d 7448320 librados1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2b620930f8b10655c2f9ca40fcc38b840aea9b1e 875590 libceph1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2eb6b6e905c710015da086425d639e2ffecdbcb8 5222374 libceph1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 cb5a70519c7818e4e62b68f34b9d6c00b2b43f30 10065950 libceph1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 1eef95ef4962ed1b4139b88328caa2d9cb0b4210 1215336 radosgw_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 0c0b7b89b62016352ee8ddd62375c137f16560c5 7747170 radosgw-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 0eb11bc9959b9754ec5fa335e5d414ee221f2efea7840e599711ae1099057219 1556 ceph_0.24.2-1.dsc
 c04cead286d566340e91bdc600be220145590817d6eba4a0005512cb11aa97c8 1533336 ceph_0.24.2.orig.tar.gz
 c07d048bad94aebb7d6fe6d606eb1778fefe3863e06d066085244ab2d746d373 5605 ceph_0.24.2-1.diff.gz
 08210805b7888792f0ef9e05ef5acb019546b8844da4c04469fbe0504c2bde38 5013566 ceph_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2c847d672177b410074eff23794ce8190c5050257937384d69eba20834fc0d75 33219248 ceph-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 04b3139853f732be8b7e767ec6fc18afe8f1fcf43e473927ebdf60405031ff5e 776882 ceph-fuse_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 cabbc3118d3c4bd942b66d17d8c03bfc07c001fe707188a5bbf4279a20525124 4852668 ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 91eaed5f0bb9263ddc368761d79064a60dab62876f64cdfe2143e3ef97629601 919674 ceph-client-tools_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 fe85acc52e3576e640e1a4f59b49597b9a86c56bfa1502ab94b14c158265eb53 5387172 ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 aa0748f8c6583024b846c95fd5d5b0b5a1a7d34e4afae738511233472aa9a78a 13464 libcrush1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 97f803d1c0d9abf2b689a06b4acecd0399e40409b2a6932b5e169924a6e84254 20774 libcrush1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2c8fad0f836f82b076c221ac9fb46892ccc3e7c06aa9aa09732682d4b0b7626b 35556 libcrush1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 0392c7b45c549526dd2a2fc6f99677203e3086b290131d7492401fdfb37902e6 616354 librados1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 821114e613e8fd5412aba8b168aecc57e115d9fdf23731c32a4ebc53546052f1 3907064 librados1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 e8274074d8d7252e249cb9d920ecf377623a36b1234957a78649f342571c98c5 7448320 librados1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 71fe81a12903485c4529e5f05f306f1e744b21ee82779fb8f2b17d18dd230bb7 875590 libceph1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 b17257ddff1a6082c4be4f6fe4cd3e8ad9bf9113ef9ff20aacfdc69a619d953d 5222374 libceph1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 1c007df453bf08d9e362683de9663f45bff5ab2654dcbc4e436eb0187daa74d8 10065950 libceph1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 764ddf4336c3b3fb4ba03fa48441d415798c300d917a564d5d3e7f051fbafbca 1215336 radosgw_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 4b155b4f83bb6ea64a59572de7206a2bfc377161846cfc7662c901e55267d1fb 7747170 radosgw-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
Files: 
 db89493ddbc26ba33d05391b03a0bcfc 1556 admin optional ceph_0.24.2-1.dsc
 412176d412bd97a220faf908151bdda5 1533336 admin optional ceph_0.24.2.orig.tar.gz
 815484f8ff193f18392100005b569935 5605 admin optional ceph_0.24.2-1.diff.gz
 26d5d5340e67824e4aa595dbf2e11b52 5013566 admin optional ceph_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 b8dab0e6f7d65cc07da432a6504d91d1 33219248 debug extra ceph-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 8d10251c82bc8c1f08e0f7f4aae5a293 776882 admin optional ceph-fuse_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 f63fcc97ee6a5efe5b5eef95f00b9c0e 4852668 debug extra ceph-fuse-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 5f3b1ba4a153517dcd0aedf8ede31aed 919674 admin optional ceph-client-tools_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 456e822f958b27c7a554095776c1ec96 5387172 debug extra ceph-client-tools-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 dedd40f4f49c74100ed705e33b595ad5 13464 admin optional libcrush1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 81292a5642de8fbaa71cb59d9e5fcf74 20774 debug extra libcrush1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 8412b2d2193138396698d447fc6445af 35556 libdevel optional libcrush1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 fd3e0fdd8fab6c3a0a9157df1f26478c 616354 admin optional librados1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2687a30a00d8ecf64bf943d0a6e02fd7 3907064 debug extra librados1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 2a6757e6567923df14dcae8dcda71b78 7448320 libdevel optional librados1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 5b9f97230c9b01506c4df7628c0e5e1a 875590 admin optional libceph1_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 11f1a68aa5397382f20a4af00f73efc0 5222374 debug extra libceph1-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 b795592abfa929396d500ea5c7288d30 10065950 libdevel optional libceph1-dev_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 a5db3e0423310f0cf7e86901ba28a1b7 1215336 admin optional radosgw_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb
 6fadf651ab92fc1e0fa63e971a9b079c 7747170 debug extra radosgw-dbg_0.24.2-1_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk1EZC4ACgkQMDatjqUaT93B3ACgox8UsJ4X5ZN8SlSOxVRr1yej
c0cAnA3UNBBZnn+xiniUglTw6kSgZH/G
=X75G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:39:19 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Tue Jan 9 19:18:08 2018; Machine Name: buxtehude

Debian Bug tracking system

Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.

Debian Bug report logs - #506040 ITP: ceph -- a distributed filesystem

Debian Bug report logs - #506040
ITP: ceph -- a distributed filesystem