Please merge lilo 1:22.8-8.3 (main) from Debian unstable (main)

[Bhavani Shankar]

Binary package hint: lilo

Debian changelog

 lilo (1:22.8-8.3) unstable; urgency=high

   * Non-maintainer upload.
   * Change kernel and initramfs hook scripts to do nothing if lilo.conf
     does not exist (Closes: #594479)

 -- Ben Hutchings <email address hidden> Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:10:47 +0100
lilo (1:22.8-8.2) unstable; urgency=high

   * Non-maintainer upload.
   * Add kernel and initramfs hook scripts to ensure lilo is reinstalled
     whenever the kernel or initramfs is updated. (Closes: #590022)

 -- Ben Hutchings <email address hidden> Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:25:24 +0100
2009
lilo (1:22.8-8.1) unstable; urgency=low

   * Non-maintainer upload.
   * Fix pending l10n issues. Debconf translations:
     - Czech (Miroslav Kure). Closes: #505912
     - Vietnamese (Clytie Siddall). Closes: #513343
     - Spanish (Francisco Javier Cuadrado). Closes: #523466
     - Italian (Luca Monducci). Closes: #544597
     - Basque (Iñaki Larrañaga Murgoitio). Closes: #545514
     - Finnish (Esko Arajärvi). Closes: #545511
     - Dutch (Vincent Zweije). Closes: #546509

 -- Christian Perrier <email address hidden> Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:54:16 +0200

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Do you think there is any way that patch could go to debian with a dpkg-vendor snippet in the rules?

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

if the package is using quilt it should be possible to have a different series and set QUILT_SERIES in the rules

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Hello sebastian

yes but isnt this a ubuntu specific change? and how to generalise it and forward it to debian?

Regards

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Debian maintainer writes:

--- start quote ---

Joachim Wiedorn <email address hidden> wrote on 2010-11-04 19:55:
>
> Bhavani Shankar <email address hidden> wrote on 2010-11-04 14:36:
>
> > yes but isnt this a ubuntu specific change? and how to generalise it and
> > forward it to debian?
>
> Would it be a solution to create ubuntu-specific packages of lilo?
> If there would enough interest I could do it.
>
> By the way: I'm the current developer of lilo - today the new version
> lilo 23.1 is out (at present in the git repository, in short as files).

Now I have made packages for Ubuntu and Debian. You can find them here:

 http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/ubuntu/
 http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/debian/

Have a nice day,

Joachim (Germany)

----end quote------

Hello Joachim and sebastian

thanks for the quick reply in that case this can be a sync but m not aware that if ubuntu allows syncing from a unofficial version

Waiting for a core-dev's response

Regards

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

> yes but isnt this a ubuntu specific change?

right, but you could have an series.ubuntu in debian and a rules snippet which use dpkg-vendor and set QUILT_SERIES to that one on Ubuntu, this way debian and ubuntu could use the same source, the extra patch would only be used on ubuntu though

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Hello sebastian:

Forwarding the idea to debian maintainer for his views. and I have a small doubt. By doing this the ubuntu patch of branding change will still exist right?

Warm regards

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Joachim: kindly awaiting your comments for Sebastien's idea above

Regards

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

> By doing this the ubuntu patch of branding change will still exist right?

right, the idea is to have a different patch serie on each distribution so the branding patch gets applied only when building on Ubuntu

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

in fact it seems there is no need to tweak the rules to change the serie, the new debian format will try vendor.serie series before the standard one it seems

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Yes but we ll have to have a source format change I think which is best done in debian I think So ll open up a bugreport in debian on this topic

regards

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Reported in debian and opened a bugwatch

regards

[Joachim Wiedorn (ad-debian)]

Bhavani Shankar <email address hidden> wrote on 2010-11-08 15:57:

> Reported in debian and opened a bugwatch
> ** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #602824
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602824
  |
  V
» which essentially states that applying patches can be easier with a
» common source package and sebastien's idea also came from the below
» article
»
»http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/11/05/managing-distribution-specific-patches-with-a-common-source-package/
»
» which requires only a source format change to 3.0(quilt)

Thanks for this link. I will try to create a package in this way of
Raphael Hertzog have written.

Unfortunately the maintainer of Lilo in Debian seems to don't want do
any work on this package anymore. But I hope we get a solution for this
problem in the next weeks.

Have a nice day,
Joachim (Germany)

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Thanks Joachim for your reply

Regards

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

I'll unsubscribe sponsors for now, please resubscribe when the patch was considered in Debian - that'd make it a lot easier.

[Joachim Wiedorn (ad-debian)]

Joachim Wiedorn <email address hidden> wrote on 2010-11-08 18:46:

> » which essentially states that applying patches can be easier with a
> » common source package and sebastien's idea also came from the below
> » article
> »
> »http://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/11/05/managing-distribution-specific-patches-with-a-common-source-package/
> »
> » which requires only a source format change to 3.0(quilt)
>
> Thanks for this link. I will try to create a package in this way of
> Raphael Hertzog have written.

Now I have worked the last week on an universal source package for
Debian/Ubuntu. You can find my test packages here:
http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/

It would be nice if someone will test it, too.

> Unfortunately the maintainer of Lilo in Debian seems to don't want do
> any work on this package anymore. But I hope we get a solution for this
> problem in the next weeks.

Because there are a problem with Lilo maintaining in Debian: Perhaps it
would be the better way to make the packages for Ubuntu directly above the
Ubuntu Developer Team without waiting on Debian maintaining.

Have a nice day,
Joachim (Germany)

[Bhavani Shankar (bhavi)]

Thanks joachim ll update the package today evening

thanks again for your work

regards

[Joachim Wiedorn (ad-debian)]

Joachim Wiedorn <email address hidden> wrote on 2010-11-17 22:31:
>
> Now I have worked the last week on an universal source package for
> Debian/Ubuntu. You can find my test packages here:
> http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/

There are new packages for Debian and Ubuntu, made with the same source
package of LILO 23.1.

It can be seen in the following git repository:
http://git.debian.org/?p=lilo/debian.git;a=summary

It can be downloaded for Ubuntu Natty (i386, amd86):
http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/ubuntu/

and can be downloaded for Debian Squeeze (i386, amd64):
http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/debian/

While working on these new packages I have analyzed all bugreports for
LILO in Debian and Ubuntu. I have created many patches which can now be
used to close 25 Debian bugreports and 5 Ubuntu bugreports.

Finally the new packages for Ubuntu can be uploaded to the official
repository.

Would it be a good idea to make packages for Maverick, too?
Which naming scheme would be the best? 23.1-1ubuntu1~maverick1 ?

Have a nice day,

Joachim (Germany)

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Le lundi 22 novembre 2010 à 19:58 +0100, Joachim Wiedorn a écrit :
> There are new packages for Debian and Ubuntu, made with the same
> source
> package of LILO 23.1.
>
> It can be seen in the following git repository:
> http://git.debian.org/?p=lilo/debian.git;a=summary

Hey Joachim,

Is the git you are pointing there the official lilo one? Did you
official become maintainer for lilo in Debian or does that need to be
reviewed and approved before landing?

> It can be downloaded for Ubuntu Natty (i386, amd86):
> http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/ubuntu/
>
> and can be downloaded for Debian Squeeze (i386, amd64):
> http://lilo.alioth.debian.org/ftp/debian/
>
> While working on these new packages I have analyzed all bugreports for
> LILO in Debian and Ubuntu. I have created many patches which can now
> be
> used to close 25 Debian bugreports and 5 Ubuntu bugreports.

Great work!

> Finally the new packages for Ubuntu can be uploaded to the official
> repository.

Shouldn't we rather wait on a Debian upload and sync from it?

> Would it be a good idea to make packages for Maverick, too?
> Which naming scheme would be the best? 23.1-1ubuntu1~maverick1 ?

The stable update rules usually allow only selected fixes for specific
issues, it's not likely that this version would be allowed as such but
backporting some of the patches might be possible. I would suggest
getting the new version in natty rather though, grub is used by default
in Ubuntu and most stable users will not need that update.

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher

[Joachim Wiedorn (ad-debian)]

Hello Sebastien,

Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden> wrote on 2010-11-23 10:56:

> Is the git you are pointing there the official lilo one? Did you
> official become maintainer for lilo in Debian or does that need to be
> reviewed and approved before landing?

The git of Lilo upstream is official, because I am the current developer
of Lilo. The Debian/Ubuntu git is still inofficial - but up to date. On
the other hand in the internet exists only a very old official CVS.

How I have said some days ago there is a difficult situation in
maintaining of Lilo in Debian. Here you can read more about this topic:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587886

If the CTTE committee of Debian decide, that I may overtake the
maintaining, then I am the new maintainer.

> > Finally the new packages for Ubuntu can be uploaded to the official
> > repository.
>
> Shouldn't we rather wait on a Debian upload and sync from it?

We can wait, but I don't know how long we must wait: two weeks, two
months ...? Perhaps to long for Lilo and for Ubuntu.

> The stable update rules usually allow only selected fixes for specific
> issues, it's not likely that this version would be allowed as such but
> backporting some of the patches might be possible. I would suggest

So there apply similar rules as for Debian.

Have a nice day,

Joachim (Germany)

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

The new version discussion is different from the issue reported there so maybe a new bug should be opened about that or the ubuntu-devel list should be emailed for discussion, in any case you should subscribe the sponsors back to the bug that should get reviewed

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package lilo - 1:22.8-8.3ubuntu1

---------------
lilo (1:22.8-8.3ubuntu1) natty; urgency=low

  * Merge from debian unstable(LP: #669363). Remaining change:
    - 03_boot-prompt.patch, 03_lilo-version.patch: Change Debian branding to
      Ubuntu.

lilo (1:22.8-8.3) unstable; urgency=high

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Change kernel and initramfs hook scripts to do nothing if lilo.conf
    does not exist (Closes: #594479)

lilo (1:22.8-8.2) unstable; urgency=high

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Add kernel and initramfs hook scripts to ensure lilo is reinstalled
    whenever the kernel or initramfs is updated. (Closes: #590022)

lilo (1:22.8-8.1) unstable; urgency=low

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Fix pending l10n issues. Debconf translations:
    - Czech (Miroslav Kure). Closes: #505912
    - Vietnamese (Clytie Siddall). Closes: #513343
    - Spanish (Francisco Javier Cuadrado). Closes: #523466
    - Italian (Luca Monducci). Closes: #544597
    - Basque (Iñaki Larrañaga Murgoitio). Closes: #545514
    - Finnish (Esko Arajärvi). Closes: #545511
    - Dutch (Vincent Zweije). Closes: #546509
 -- Bhavani Shankar <email address hidden> Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:15:56 +0530