On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:59:18AM -0400, Alexandre Quessy wrote:

Done. I will have to add your license to the copyright of some of the Debian packaging.

What I do is maintain packaging licensing in debian/rules. And I (ideally, when not too lazy) do not add licensing info of others but instead request them to add it themselves. ;-)

Actually, git-buildpackage doesn't work anymore with this. I removed
it locally... I am missing some point on how to use pristine-tar. It
needs the upstream tarball in the parent directory, or so... working
on this.

No, the whole point of pristine-tar is that the Git is fully self-contained: You need not put a tarball anywhere, git-buildpackage regenerates it as needed.

What fails now for you is that you simply grabbed by gbp.conf file wich contained not only what you needed but also a hint to use bzip2 compressed tarballs. The tarball actually contained in the Git currently is a good old gzip-compressed one so is ignored when you tell git-buildpackage to instead use bzip2 :-P

It does seem, however, from a quick glance, that some parts of the project is not arch-limited.  It might be a good idea to split packaging to provide most possible to all archs.

That would be nice, but it's probably going to be difficult. The
jack-info, dc-ctl and midistream utilities could be packages
separately, and should be useful for the multimedia-loving masses.
Since scenic relies on milhouse, they could be packaged together.
Again, I am a close-to-beginner in packaging, so I am not sure where
to start, especially that the current build process is unified and
using a single autotools configure.ac script. It would imply splitting
it upstream, no?

Packaging typically goes like this:

 1. Prepare
 2. configure
 3. build
 4. install
 5. reinstall into package area
 6. tune packaging

Here, steps 2-4 is done by autotools, and 5-6 is done by debhelper.

So splitting into multiple packages is (more or less) a simple matter of adding more binary packages in debian/control and hinting in debian/*.install which autotools-installed parts each of them should contain.

Either json or simplejson is used upstream.  Are you aware that those implementations are not fully interchangeable (one of them - I forgot which - do not follow JSON specs!), and they might be slow too?  The Sugar project switched to python-cjson for these reasons.

Wouldn't it be simpler to depend on python (>= 2.6) | python-simplejson ? If not, I'll try with cjson.

Sure, if it works.

What I warned about is that it those JSON implementations might not behave equally. And that I do not remember the details, but know for sure that the Sugar developers ended up switching to cjson and only that.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to