On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:29, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/20 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:23, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>

OK. I'll import rev2 now. Please review the copyright statements after
I've done this, to prune the files only found in the with-extras
version.


-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler

_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Reply via email to