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


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to