2011/7/27 Reinhard Tartler <siret...@tauware.de>: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 19:48:05 (CEST), Rogério Brito wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> I'm in the middle of a power outage right now, using the last few >> drops of energy of notebook battery and a 3G connection, so I will be >> brief. (Oh, please keep in the CC'ies to me). >> >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 14:41, Andres Mejia <mcita...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 26, 2011 12:49 PM, "robert" <robert.hegem...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Rogério. >>>> >>>> Am 26.07.2011, 16:24 Uhr, schrieb Rogério Brito <rbr...@ime.usp.br>: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> We're just waiting for a new release of lame with all the license >>>>>> clarification changes before uploading lame to Debian. :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that we will be able to release anything in time for >>> DebConf, >>>>> as LAME is just beginning to get into the beta stage. >>>> >>>> >>>> What time frame are we talking about? >>>> >>>> From my point of view, there may be some small patches to apply >>>> and then release 3.99: >>>> >>>> 1 - pending LGPL patch >>>> 2 - eventually changing default behaviour for ID3v2 unicode tags. >>>> >>>> What do the others think? >> >> Robert, it seems that Andres just adopted the suggestion that I gave >> him of backporting some changes. Regarding a new release, I think that >> we may need to include one extra thing in our TODO list. See below. > > Andres, may I suggest that instead of placing patches inline in > debian/lame-get-orig-source.sh, we create an 'upstream-dfsg' branch, do > modifications there directly and roll tarballs from that?
I suppose this can be done, though once all licensing related problems are resolved upstream, there would be little use for this branch. I created the script to be (hopefully) a one time fix for the last stable release of lame. >>> I was simply going to backport the lgpl patches and upload the last release. >>> I suppose there's no need to wait for a new release now. >> >> Andres, I just saw that LAME was rejected by the FTP masters: >> >> >> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-July/020498.html >> >> That part is only used if we use lame's internal IO routines. Just rip >> that apart and link with libsndfile and we're done. Please reupload >> that... > > Unforunately, this won't work easily because frontend/main.c uses > functions from portableio.h unconditionally. We'd therefore need some > more patches. Anyone familiar with the codebase and willing to > contribute that patch? > >> I am motivated enough to get LAME into Debian that I am *seriously* >> planning to rewrite that portion of the code for the next stable >> release, implementing just the bare minimum that is needed for LAME to >> work (and, of course, not reproducing Erik Castro's work with >> sndfile). >> >> Most of the functions in portableio.[ch] are quite trivial, anyway... >> You can tell that I *badly* want LAME in Debian, can't you? >> (Especially now that it seems that the FTP masters are convinced that >> such software is Free Software). >> >> Oh, hint, hint for the multimedia maintainers: what about uploading my >> already packaged mp3packer from my launchpad PPA? [0] >> >> [0]: >> https://launchpad.net/~rbrito/+archive/ppa/+files/mp3packer_1.20-1~ubuntu1.dsc >> >> OK, the battery of my laptop is running out... :-( > > Doesn't the package lack a dependency on lame? AFAIUI it is a tool to > reencode .mp3 files. I persume that it uses lame for that, but the > documentatin isn't entirely clear on that. > > -- > Gruesse/greetings, > Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 > -- Regards, Andres Mejia _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
