On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 13:02, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoel...@iem.at> wrote:
>> I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading all
>> (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid that?
> hmm, i'm not sure if i understand what you mean:
> i thought bugs can only be fixed by providing fixed versions.
> if a package is FTBFS because of  broken bulid system, then the only solution 
> i
> see is to fix the build system and re-upload the package.
> the only alternative i see, would be to centralize the build system, e.g. by
> providing a common makefile snippet that would be used instead of upstream's
> build system.
> i started centralizing once with a "pd-pkg-tools" library, but it ended up as 
> a
> cdbs snippet (while almost all of the packages in question right now use
> shortform dh).
> also the cdbs snippet does not replace upstream build system, but rather fixes
> debian specifics (e.g. make shlibdeps work nicely with the non-standard
> extension)
> i'm not opposed at all to using a central (separately maintained) makefile, 
> but
> hans has spent a lot of time crafting the current (upstream) makefile to make 
> it
> work with a wide range of systems.
> the current template for the (upstream) Makefile already fixes the 
> kFreeBSD/hurd
> problems, but the packages in question have not been updated (upstream) to use
> the new template, so i decided to fix the problem using packaging 
> possibilities.

This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is
essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do
others think?


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to