[linux-lvm] Debian packaging

Russell Coker russell at coker.com.au
Fri Dec 15 06:51:10 UTC 2000

On 2000-12-14 17:46, lewis at sistina.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:15:22PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
>> I plan to take over the Debian package of lvm because the current
>> maintainer hasn't fixed serious bugs for quite a while.
>A couple of questions.  Have you tried contacting Tom Lees
> <tal26 at cam.ac.uk>?  I have talked to him and he is working on LVM 0.9
> packages for sure.  Has this transfer of maintainers been approved by the
> powers that be at Debian yet?

I have sent him email at his tom at debian.org address.

If you don't reply to email sent to the package maintainer address and don't 
fix high-priority bugs in your packages then your packages can be NMU'd 
without any issue.  After an NMU if there is still no response then they are 
up for grabs.

If he doesn't want me to take over the package then he will have to reply to 
my email.

>> I have created packages for lvm 0.8.1 and lvm 0.9.  One change I think
>> should be done is an option for ./configure to specify whether a shared
>> library should be used or whether the programs should be statically
>> linked.  If this is desired then someone please tell me which version I
>> should create a patch against and I'll send it in.
>Since the configure.in scripts are essentially the same, you can just submit
> a patch to one or the other to the lvm-devel list and we'll get it in on
> the next release.  I am the one responsible for the conversion of LKM to
> the autoconf system, so I'd be interested to see how you intend to
> accomplish this.


>Are you saying you want this patch applied to the upstream source?  That
>really doesn't make much sense to me.  The Makefile.in patch is completely
>unnecessary because the subdirectories Makefile.in files handle those

Right.  At the time I wrote it I obviously hadn't looked at the code enough.  
It had seemed not to do what I wanted so I patched it.

>cleanups.  And it doesn't make any sense to me to put the ${PREFIX} stuff in
>the upstream version, as it is not necessary.  That is what the

You're right.  It's better to set prefix=`pwd`/debian/tmp/ at install time.

>> Also I would prefer to have the Debian packaging files in the upstream
>> source.  They are about 5K of data in 11 files in a separate
>> sub-directory. Please let me know if this would be desired/accepted as
>> part of the LVM upstream source and I will send the relevant patch to you.
>One question.  Why?  Seems completely unnecessary to me.

It makes things easier for people doing other distributions amoung other 
things.  If you had a Red Hat spec file in there then it would have made 
things a bit easier for me (I could probably find one on the net somewhere 
but then there's issues of whether it matches the source I've got etc).
Also if someone submits a patch for lvm then they would (hopefully) also 
patch the Debian setup in a matching fashion thus saving duplication of 
Debian packaging files in the CVS works well for KDE...

http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/     Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/       Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/     My home page

More information about the linux-lvm mailing list