From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5086269EDE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:15:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4689A337F0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:15:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D3403337E3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:15:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 961E141CCB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:15:00 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <f25ebf44-6aad-9350-b1fe-21772b506638@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:14:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/86.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
References: <20210224210802.8425-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210224210802.8425-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.054 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied-series: [PATCH zfsonlinux 0/4] match library
 package names with d.o. and minor cleanups
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 11:15:01 -0000

On 24.02.21 22:07, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> I noticed that debian.org ships differently named packages for the zfs
> libraries. I overlooked the change from e.g. libnvpair2 to libnvpair3
> during the zfs-2.0.0 preparation somehow - sorry!
> 
> In order to not cause even more confusion (by being the only distro that
> ships libnvpair2linux) the first patch aligns our package names with d.o
> 
> the remaining patches are mostly cosmetic cleanups picked up while diffing
> d/rules with upstream. The added checkabi test seemed quick enough and
> potentially worth it.
> 
> Stoiko Ivanov (4):
>   d/control: match package names to debian-upstream
>   d/rules: cosmetic cleanups minimize diff with d.o.
>   d/rules: drop unneeded UDEB conditionals
>   buildsys: validate ABI at build time
> 

applied, thanks!