Re: Remaining debian specific patch which can be merged, maybe ...

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:17:34PM -0500, Mathieu Bruneau wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >1.6.21 has made unecessary a bunch of debian patches, and now that the hfs 
> >one
> >is going to be merged, i make another run of 
> >patch-possible-integration-analysis.
> >
> >The remaining patches are : 
> >
> >Debian specific, so no real need to patch :
> >  doc-package
> >  reiserfs-libname   
> >
> >For the others, we have :
> >  errors-to-stderr
> >     This may be of interest in general, not sure though. It is a short 
> >     and
> >     trivial patch which predates my involvement with the debian parted
> >     package.
> >  
> >  devfs
> >     This one tries devfs reading if the /proc/partitions method failed 
> >     and
> >     we have devfs stuff.
> >
> >  s390
> >     Maybe worth committing, huge patch and needs FSF copyright
> >     assignement. Probably the two above too.
> >
> >  lvm2
> >     Andrew voted against this one, so i am happy to keep it debian
> >     specific for now.
> >
> >  ubd 
> >     This one is probably obsoleted by the recent change in 1.6.21.
> >
> >So, basically, the errors-to-stderr, devfs and s390 patch may be worth
> >applying, doc-package, reiserfs-libname and lvm2 will stay debian-specific,
> >and ubd can probably be dropped.
> >
> >Friendly,
> >
> >Sven Luther
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Bug-parted mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
> >
> While we are there, I suggest changing the error messages. Instead of 
> only the current "send this error messages and the following". We could 
> add incentive for:
> 
> A description of what you were doing
> The partition table (fdisk print)
> Other usefull information
> 
> or more simply:
> Refer them to the website of parted for more information of what could 
> be usefull for bug submitting!

I vote for this.

Friendly,

Sven Luther