On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 02:26:48PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> So regarding a) I believe it boils down to a guestion of whether or not  
> you will find it annoying that I isolate the changes between latest  
> upstream tarball and the VCS snapshot that you prepared, and include  
> that difference as a patch?

I don't find this annoying, I could perfectly live with it.

My personal opinion is quite the opposite, I hate tarballs, I believe
they're obsolete in times of version control systems, they complicate
work due to always being outdated and so on and so on.

But since this is a developer's point of view and not a packager's
perspective, I'm fine with pristine tarballs and, if need be, one
additional vcs diff. (where's the difference to directly basing
everything on a vcs checkout and strip this one?)

> Regarding b) that other ongoing discussion touched the general concern  
> of complicating maintainance in this team by having multiple packaging  
> styles.

What I've seen in the team so far: make it work. Besides this, there are
no to few rules.

We don't have a "please beginners" policy.

> So I guess b) boils down to a question if you will allow me to infest  
> the JACK packaging with even more CDBS now, potentially making it  
> cumbersome to change later when maybe the team decides to avoid CDBS?

I guess we won't vote against CDBS, so, yes please, go ahead. ;) 

>> In other words: if you say that tarball+vcs-patch is the right way to  
>> address all the copyright issues in the jackd2 package, then go ahead.
> Define "right way".  It certainly is "my way" :-)

You are the DD, I'm only the DM. I'm more involved upstream, you
downstream. In other words, you know what's right for Debian, I know
what's right for jackd (again: developer vs. packager).

>> Could give a little hint how to repackage/strip new upstream versions,  
>> so more than one person in the team knows how to do it? ;)
> Most certainly:
>   dch -bv 1.9.5-1
>   debian/rules get-orig-source

Is there a list of CDBS targets? This looks interesting.

To me, the package looks good. If you like, base it on 1.9.5 and upload
it. I think I'll be able to cope with CDBS, it surely has some good
features, especially the copyright checks. In case of problems, I'd
simply ask you. ;)


PS: You might want to join #debian-multimedia on irc.oftc.net. It's
sometimes easier to answer questions in realtime. 

mail: a...@thur.de      http://adi.thur.de      PGP/GPG: key via keyserver

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to