2010/10/20 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:02, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2010/10/19 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:15, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2010/10/9 Alexandre Quessy <alexan...@quessy.net>:
>>>>> Hello Felipe and the team,
>>>>> 2010/10/6 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>>>>> On 09/21/2010 01:40 PM, Alexandre Quessy wrote:
>>>>>>> There are quite a few lintian warnings, but I tried the vim plugin and
>>>>>>> it works.
>>>>>> Yes, quite a bit. The package needs a lot of work. First of all,
>>>>>> debian/copyright needs some serious overhaul. Are you familiar with the
>>>>>> codebase? If so, please take a look at that.
>>>>> No much familiar, no. Dan would know better than me.
>>>> What sort of overhaul is needed? There are quite a few different
>>>> copyrights asserted, making it fairly bulky, but I don't spot any
>>> For starters, a whole lot of paths are wrong (they are missing the
>>> common/ subdir prefix). Hmm, maybe serious overhaul is an
>>> overstatement, but getting the right paths is a must, and made me
>>> doubt the overall quality of the file, perhaps indicative of neglect.
>> Ah thankyou. Yes that is neglect but fairly recent neglect, we
>> reorganised the folder structure before 3.4 but it seems we forgot the
>> paths in the copyright folder.
>> OK I've fixed it now in svn.
>> Feel free to pull it in. (I'd like to help with the debian packaging
>> git - could I be given access or should I start my own git and send
>> pull requests?)
> No, join our team and then clone the ssh address of our repository.
>>>>>> Where did you get the packaging from? Upstream?
>>>>> Yes. I took it from the upstream SVN repository. Dan has done one more
>>>>> - at least - after I took it, though. He might have removed some
>>>>> files. I specifically told him about some proprietary files that he
>>>>> removed. I'll double check this and let you know.
>>>>> If Dan would tell us what he changed meanwhile, that would help. Dan?
>>>> I removed common/Source/lang/LangPrimSource/HID_Utilities/* since that
>>>> had an apple copyright with a dubious gpl compatibility, and (in the
>>>> svn packaging info) removed the apple entry from debian/copyrights as
>>>> a result.
>>>> (To be more accurate: We have a script that makes a pruned
>>>> linux-source .tar.gz, so what I did was to add the folder to the list
>>>> of what gets pruned out. The folder is still there in the upstream and
>>>> used on mac.)
>>> Where is this pruned linux-source tar.gz? Our repository seems to have
>>> the SuperCollider-3.4-Source-With-Extras-linux.tar.gz file from
>>> sourceforge with md5sum 20631117a7e9fb1c862833ce424ce9f4. Should we be
>>> using the without extras variant? Or maybe even another tarball?
>> With-extras should be fine, however so far I've only tweaked the
>> not-with-extras one to remove the Apple files
>> (SuperCollider-3.4-rev2-Source-linux.tar.gz at
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/supercollider/files/Source/3.4/ ).
>> We're hoping to get 3.4.1 released very soon so I'll include these
>> tweaks in that.
> What are the extras? The without extras tarball seems to be much smaller.
Actually I think we should not include the extras for now, because
that could muddy the process. The extras are essentially third-party
addons, two types of thing: plugins for the audio server, and add-ons
for the language. They're both GPL but the copyrights and other things
would be a bit awkward, and there are additional dependencies and
other stuff. (The extras are more loosely policed than the core.)
> And if there are conflictive files we should use the pruned tarballs.
Yes, definitely the pruned ones (*-linux.tar.gz*) are what to use.
> > OK thanks. I've created an account "danstowell-guest" and submitted a
> > request.
Thanks! I'm happy to be here.
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list