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 Zakrisson