Adrian Reyer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had some need for a recent util-vserver package for Debian (amd64)
> with the Debian-paths, most notably /var/lib/vservers and if any
> possible without killing the system when upgrading from the original
> Debian-supplied 0.30.216-pre2864-2+b1.
Just add --with-vrootdir=/var/lib/vservers to debian/rules
> Basically I replaced the pre2967 debian-directory with the
> Debian-pre2864 and adjusted a few things. It seems to work here.
> I admit I don't understand what the problem is with just doing a symlink
> for /vservers to /var/lib/vservers, given the --barrier is set
> correctly. Is there any reason the Debian-enhanced debian-directory is
> not within the util-vserver directory but instead a version that looks
> like a dummy to me?
How is it a dummy? It's a completely functional package, packaged the
way it is meant to be, instead of the checkinstall-like crap that is
the Debian package.
> The technical part of the necessary changes is somewhat easy for me to
> get and to adjust, however, I am quite unsure about the legal part, and
> if it is legally fine, about the fairness part.
I have no idea what this even means.
> Within the debian-directory there are a few patches that fix general
> things, grammar, spelling or bash-specific code that can easily be
> changed to be usable with 'sh' as well. These things are not back in
> the original tree. Are they not wanted there or just never got offered
> in an easy way to be included back there?
Not anything I've seen or heard about.
> Due to the mere copying there are now Debian maintainers named as
> Uploaders and Maintainers, I guess this is not what they want. Ofc I can
> just state myself there, but then again it is probably not enough
> acknowlegment of their work. On the other hand, this debian-directory
> replaces the one Daniel delivers with the stock util-vserver package. So
> all mentioning of him related to packaging dissapears as well.
> The changelog is the one from Debian-pre2864 as well, added an entry
> from myself stating 'new upstream release'.
>
> I think the correct way would be to put me as the responsible person for
> the package in maintainer/uploader and state the rest in the changelog.
> Though I have not found specific instructions for that within the gpl
> v2.
I don't understand how the GPLv2 fits in here?
> If that is fine, I am willing to provide Debian packages for recent
> util-vserver in a somewhat up-to-date form with the status 'works for
> me'.
Why exactly doesn't the util-vserver package work for you?
-- Daniel Hokka ZakrissonReceived on Sun May 22 00:39:41 2011