On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 01:01, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 21:23, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>
>> wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:28, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>> So the plan for puredata-dev has been pushed off until Pure Data 0.43
>>>>> is
>>>>> released and packaged, so I think that the approach used in these two
>>>>> packages is going to be necessary for the timebeing.
>>>>> Can anyone upload these two?  They are needed as deps for the rest of
>>>>> the
>>>>> packages that I have ITP'ed.
>>>> Why did you put the DMUA field before starting your DM application? I
>>>> will upload them, although with the field removed until you get your
>>>> DM status approved.
>>> I actually have started my DM application before debconf10.  The DebConf
>>> people that I worked with said I should get someone who knows the stuff
>>> that
>>> I package to sponsor my DM application.  None of the debconf nyc
>>> localteam
>>> do any multimedia stuff.  So at this point, once I find someone willing
>>> to
>>> sponsor me, I can revive my DM application email and complete the
>>> process.
>>> Sorry if I caused any trouble, I was just trying to make things go
>>> smoother.
>> It's not trouble, just standard practice to put the flag after the DM
>> status is attained.
>> Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience advocate your DM
>> application until I have further worked with you. Maybe after a few
>> more package uploads ;).
> Perfect, I have about 10 that are ready to upload!  :-)
>>>> And another question, why does puredata-import depends on puredata (<<
>>>> 0.43)? I just uploaded pd-libdir for now.
>>> Thanks for uploading pd-libdir!  puredata 0.43 has changed the way the
>>> headers are installed, so pd libraries that rely on certain headers will
>>> have to change once 0.43 hits the repos.  I think its important to get
>>> this
>>> stuff into Debian working with 0.42, and I'm willing to do the legwork of
>>> packaging first for pd 0.42, then updating for 0.43.
>> I understand the need for the build-depends, which is what I read from
>> your description above (pd-libdir has the same restriction). However,
>> puredata-import (the binary package) Depends on puredata << 0.43. Is
>> that intended? If so, please explain why.
> Depends: puredata (< 0.43) is a mistake, I think, now that I look at it.
>  I'll change it and push the changes once I get the chance.  But feel free
> to make the change if you beat me to it.

Good, I see you fixed this.

>> Also, while we are on it, why the naming scheme change? Shouldn't it
>> be pd-import?
> So there are multiple flavors of 'pd' but only one is currently packaged
> (puredata).  I am in the process of packaging the other major flavor,
> Pd-extended as pdextended and that package will also provide 'pd'.
>  Pd-extended/pdextended has "import" built-in, so it doesn't need the
> "import" from the package.  Therefore puredata-import is targeted to only
> 'puredata' not anything that that provides 'pd'.

I've added a description and removed an unnecesary note on debian/copyright.
Please rephrase the description if it does not conform to pd-speak,
and update the changelog. Then we can upload.


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to