On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:49:58PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote:

I see that Laditools and Ladish are packaged for Debian. Great work, thanks.

What are we going to support? Apps who has official added a patch for Ladi (Rosegarden)? Apps which there are patches for, but are not supported officially (Ardour)?

My feeling is that it is not wise to support a Ladi patch in an application which is not officially supported by that package. So I would package Ardour for Debian without Ladi patch.

What do you think?

How about for unofficial patches provide an "overlay flavor package" with the patch applied.

Example: ardour+ladish

It would be compiled from the ardour source package as a separate binary package, depending on the main ardour package and containing only the derived files - assuming that no conffiles derive, only the main binary and perhaps some additional data files.

Then later we can either drop it if it turns out to me not maintainable, or we can have the main package take it over (by simply Provides: ardour+ladish until after next stable distro release) if the patch gets adopted by upstream or we decide to no longer want to respect upstream ignorance of ladish.

I do *not* mean to say that ladish is the only true way forward! On the contrary my proposal is to best possible both envourage ladish while leaving open alternatives. I.e. not spit in the face of those upstreams working hard in alternative directions.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to