2010/10/20 Felipe Sateler <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:23, Dan S <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2010/10/20 Felipe Sateler <[email protected]>: >>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:02, Dan S <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> 2010/10/19 Felipe Sateler <[email protected]>: >>>>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:15, Dan S <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> 2010/10/9 Alexandre Quessy <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> Hello Felipe and the team, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2010/10/6 Felipe Sateler <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> wrongness. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Great. >>> >>>> >>>> OK I've fixed it now in svn. >>>> <http://supercollider.svn.sf.net/viewvc/supercollider/packages/ubuntu/copyright?r1=10329&r2=10403> >>>> 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. > > OK. So, if I understand correctly, we should use the -rev2 version > without extras?
Yes. >> 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.) > > Are they also released indepently of the core? If so, we could package > it separately, which may simplify things. Yes. Some of the extra plugins need the main sc source in order to build, which is a bit of a pain, it's something we need to clean up upstream before we come back downstream to package it. Dan _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
