On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 06:32, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/11/3 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>> 2010/11/2 Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com>:
>>> 2010/10/31 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>>> Артём, you are CCed because I don't know if you are subscribed to the list.
>>>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:09, Dan S <danstowell+de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2010/10/6 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org>:
>>>>> > Hi all, (Dan CCed because I'm not sure if you are subscribed to the 
>>>>> > list)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I managed to take a few minutes to take a look at the package and it is
>>>>> > not in a very good shape (it was still using simple-patchsys!). I have
>>>>> > worked a bit on it, but it still has a long way to go. I will try to
>>>>> > work on it during this week, I think I can find one hour or two.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dan, as you are part of upstream, could you comment on the patches
>>>>> > included in the packaging? I can see they are in upstream svn ubuntu
>>>>> > packaging module, with yourself as last commiter on most of them. They
>>>>> > are older than the latest sc release, though.
>>>>> Hi - sorry for slow reply, I missed this thread. Most of the patches
>>>>> are by other people but I will try to comment:
>>>>> 02_disable_elisp_compilation.diff
>>>>>  - not sure I'm afraid, it's connected with the emacs sc3 mode, which
>>>>> I don't use. Looks like it might disable something from running simply
>>>>> because the build machine isn't the target machine.
>>>>> 03_fix_elisp_install_path.diff
>>>>>  - another emacs mode thing, not sure.
>>>> Does anyone use emacs and can comment on wether this should be applied
>>>> upstream? The patch changes the elisp install path from
>>>> /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp to /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/supercollider
>>>>> 06_deb_scvim.diff
>>>>>  - build machine != target machine so don't error out if no ruby 
>>>>> executable
>>>>> 07_deb_sced.diff
>>>>>  - build machine != target machine so don't modify machine's mime database
>>>> Dan, can you comment on whether these can be upstreamed? I don't see
>>>> why they should be debian-specific.
>>> Right, that makes sense. I've had a look at the scons scripts and not
>>> been able to integrate them in neatly (was hoping to add a nice option
>>> for not-installing-here - if anyone has the scons chops to suggest
>>> something then please do, I'd be grateful.)
>> Can't do it, at least for the time being.
> np. In the medium-term, upstream is moving from scons to cmake; the
> build scripts will hopefully be less quirky!

cmake does this automatically: rpath is used when building, but it is
stripped at install time.

>>> FYI, supercollider 3.4.1 (bugfix release) has just been agreed, so is
>>> likely to come out very very soon without any further upstreaming. I
>>> hope that doesn't get in the way of debianising... would these patches
>>> be considered blocking issues, do you think?
>> I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean that the patches are not
>> likely to be upstreamed before that, then it is no problem, we can
>> continue with the patches.
> Yes, that's what I meant, thanks. Just making sure I get the flow
> right, don't miss out anything I should be doing.

Don't worry.

By the way, the package needs to get the SONAME issue right, does
upstream have a stance on this?


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to