On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream).
> >From the README.Debian:
> ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series;
> and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two
> versions to coexist.
> For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains
> the ecasound2.2 name.
> I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just
> 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be
> to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'.
> Is this right?
> Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian
> warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary
> packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from
> scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with
> 'ecasound', see above). What do you think?
> P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with this, I'll push everything
> to git as soon as I finish initial clean-up.
I think it will be great to clean up and maintain the
ecasound source package. I'm no expert in C, but I maintain
a couple packages that depend on ecasound, and have an
interest in seeing Debian packages being maintained.
Regarding the name, the status-quo isn't especially bad.
the 2.2 refers to the C library API, which is still current,
even tho the ecasound software is up to version 2.7.x. For
example, the header file package for using the ecasound C
library is called libecasoundc2.2-dev. The python bindings
are in python-ecasound2.2.
I'll be glad to bring any issues we encounter upstream to
developers on the Ecasound mailing list.
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list