Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
Filip, > > Based on these I've created a two-binary package, one equivalent to the > > current one and another minimal dependency one - for use on my XFCE > > system. > > Debian .diff.gz attached, unpack and diff against your unpacked revision > > to see what changed. sorry to disagree, but upstream reckons that --disable-gnome is a VeryBadIdea(TM). The fact that Gentoo and SuSE have shipped it with a lot of bad results is probably the best rationale why we should not activate it until upstream reckons it's weeded of errors and safe to use. Basically the disable-gnome switch was added to get win32 to build. Seeing you talk about XFCE makes me wonder hard if you actually understood what current Ekiga does link against. It's nothing but the pure minimalistic set of GNOME core libs plus GTK2. That means, it's what XFCE already calls in itself. Added to this is evolution-data-server to have a centralized backend for addressbook and contacts management. This is said AFAIK to become the new default backend for freedesktop.org anyway, thus this probably also will be added to XFCE-depends sooner or later. Bottom line is, Ekiga doesn't call for GNOME as you might expect, but only the GNOME libs. Adding the switch you ask for is not a technical problem of the packaging, but the usability will be torn down by a quite reasonable part. Nothing I do find a very charming idea. If you got any intelligence what the disable-gnome switch turns off which can be disabled safely, I'm all ears to rethink that idea. Until then, I don't see any reason to _not_ tag a wishlist bug like that "wontfix". If this was meant to only ask for one avahi-enabled and one avahi-disabled, then please rephrase your demand and I shall discuss this with upstream and pkg-voip about how to make sure people don't mess up their config installing the wrong version. The ekiga(-full) can later also hold the dbus while the ekiga-minimalistic won't need to have both avahi and dbus. Nevertheless I doubt that only avahi is clashing into your XFCE trimmed config, is it? -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
The usual "sent-before-you-attach" syndrome... On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 09:26:16PM +0100, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 04:06:47PM +0100, Kilian Krause wrote: > > > > > Any place we can get them before acceptance?[1] I have a library package > > > myself in there only for split out of a single lib, and it's been there > > > for a few weeks now. > > > > deb http://people.debian.org/~kilian/pkg-voip/ ./ > > deb-src http://people.debian.org/~kilian/pkg-voip/ ./ > > Based on these I've created a two-binary package, one equivalent to the > current one and another minimal dependency one - for use on my XFCE > system. > Debian .diff.gz attached, unpack and diff against your unpacked revision > to see what changed. > > For a reasonably clean rules file I had to rename the "regular" build to > ekiga-full. > That's suboptimal, but I'm not sure how to work around easily. > > TODOs: > > - There should probably a -common package (or perhaps ekiga, depending on > ekiga-full | ekiga-tiny) which contains, well, all files contained in > both builds ;) > - I had to make some upstream changes to get things to build out of the > source directory. Most changes are clean and straight-forward I believe, > but there was one particular class of changes which is ugly: upstream > #includes ../../config.h in a lot of places, as there's an internal > config.h along the include path. In an out-of-source build, there is no > more ../../config.h; incidentally due to the available -I flags I was > able to change them to ../config.h instead and get things to work but > ideally the internal config.h should be renamed to something less > generic so it no longer clashes with the autotools config.h, and then > the include can be - as it should - for just "config.h". > > I can't file a wishlist bug yet as the package has not entered the > archives. > > I hope you'll include two builds in a next version. mvg, Filip -- "Hoe meer ik de mensen leer kennen, hoe meer ik de bonobo's sympathiek vind." -- Koen Robeys ekiga_1.99.1-3.diff.gz Description: Binary data
Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
Hi, On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 04:06:47PM +0100, Kilian Krause wrote: > > > Any place we can get them before acceptance?[1] I have a library package > > myself in there only for split out of a single lib, and it's been there > > for a few weeks now. > > deb http://people.debian.org/~kilian/pkg-voip/ ./ > deb-src http://people.debian.org/~kilian/pkg-voip/ ./ Based on these I've created a two-binary package, one equivalent to the current one and another minimal dependency one - for use on my XFCE system. Debian .diff.gz attached, unpack and diff against your unpacked revision to see what changed. For a reasonably clean rules file I had to rename the "regular" build to ekiga-full. That's suboptimal, but I'm not sure how to work around easily. TODOs: - There should probably a -common package (or perhaps ekiga, depending on ekiga-full | ekiga-tiny) which contains, well, all files contained in both builds ;) - I had to make some upstream changes to get things to build out of the source directory. Most changes are clean and straight-forward I believe, but there was one particular class of changes which is ugly: upstream #includes ../../config.h in a lot of places, as there's an internal config.h along the include path. In an out-of-source build, there is no more ../../config.h; incidentally due to the available -I flags I was able to change them to ../config.h instead and get things to work but ideally the internal config.h should be renamed to something less generic so it no longer clashes with the autotools config.h, and then the include can be - as it should - for just "config.h". I can't file a wishlist bug yet as the package has not entered the archives. I hope you'll include two builds in a next version. Regards, Filip -- "When we said that you needed to cut the wires for ultimate security, we didn't mean that you should go wireless instead." -- Casper Dik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
Filip, > Any place we can get them before acceptance?[1] I have a library package > myself in there only for split out of a single lib, and it's been there > for a few weeks now. deb http://people.debian.org/~kilian/pkg-voip/ ./ deb-src http://people.debian.org/~kilian/pkg-voip/ ./ -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
Hi all, On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 05:54:34PM +0100, Kilian Krause wrote: > Am Freitag, den 17.02.2006, 16:50 +0100 schrieb Filip Van Raemdonck: > > > > It'd be nice if you could package the beta release for ekiga (and the > > required libraries). > > Thanks to the name change, I think parallel installations are possible > > even - that'd make it even more feasible to package. (if not, it should > > probably be uploaded to experimental instead) > > actually Ekiga 2.0 BETA2 is already in the NEW queue. Yet we have no > information how long it'll need to hang in there before allowed into the > archive. Any place we can get them before acceptance?[1] I have a library package myself in there only for split out of a single lib, and it's been there for a few weeks now. Regards, Filip [1] as in, you making it available - NEW queue is closed even for maintainers normally. -- joy: xmms is even more like a windows app. I think it's called winamp. joy: there's bad gui design, and then there is winamp/xmms, which seems to go further, into the realms of unexplored non-userfriendliness -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
Hi Filip, Am Freitag, den 17.02.2006, 16:50 +0100 schrieb Filip Van Raemdonck: > package: gnomemeeting > > It'd be nice if you could package the beta release for ekiga (and the > required libraries). > Thanks to the name change, I think parallel installations are possible > even - that'd make it even more feasible to package. (if not, it should > probably be uploaded to experimental instead) actually Ekiga 2.0 BETA2 is already in the NEW queue. Yet we have no information how long it'll need to hang in there before allowed into the archive. I'll leave this bug open until it actually is ACCEPTED. -- Best regards, Kilian signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#353338: gnomemeeting: package ekiga beta
package: gnomemeeting It'd be nice if you could package the beta release for ekiga (and the required libraries). Thanks to the name change, I think parallel installations are possible even - that'd make it even more feasible to package. (if not, it should probably be uploaded to experimental instead) Regards, Filip -- "There are 340 282 366 920 938 463 463 374 607 431 768 211 456 IPv6 addresses. That's roughly 313 million addresses per every cubic millimeter of Earth." -- Mika Liljeberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
