[Filesystems-devel] Bug#904286: f2fs-tools: Please package f2fs-tools v1.11.0

[Vincent Cheng]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 01:01:10PM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>>
>> I can't find a reference right now, but I seem to recall that one of
>> the Alioth admins pointed out that mailing lists specifically for
>> package/bug tracking purposes (i.e. not used for discussion) shouldn't
>> be migrated to lists.d.o. I don't know what other alternatives there
>> are, however. I haven't really kept up with the Alioth
>> migration/deprecation as you can probably tell. :)
>
> I thought there a difference between package-specific mailing lists
> and groups that maintain a large number of packages (e.g., python, X,
> etc.)  But I could be wrong.  I thought the lists.alioth.debian.org
> was only guaranteed to be around for a year, but we do have time to
> figure out what to do.

It's certainly worth a try to see if the lists.d.o admins would allow
the creation of a filesystems-devel list. Do we need someone to
volunteer to be list admin for the new list? I did so when I requested
for the old alioth list to be migrated to alioth-lists.d.n, but that
was mostly to prevent RC bugs from kicking f2fs-tools out of testing,
and not because I particularly enjoy being a list admin.

>> Well, the shared library being split into a separate package was
>> intentional (#793863), but having never updated the package name is
>> not (I must have overlooked this somehow...). I wonder how I never got
>> any bug reports about this, because in theory that should mean that
>> android-libf2fs-utils (src:android-platform-system-extras) is flat out
>> broken (I never initiated any transitions or binNMU requests for
>> android-platform-system-extras after f2fs-tools updates).
>
> I think the right thing to do is to create separate packages for
> libf2fs and libf2fs_format.  (And the separate -dev packages, of
> course).  They have different so version numbers, and so there is no
> guarantee they will be both incremented in a particular release.  I'll
> work on that as part of the f2fs-tools 1.11 release.

I initially used Policy 8.1 as an excuse to lump them both into the
same binary package, but you're right, there is no guarantee that
soversion will change for both at the same time. Thanks!

Regards,
Vincent