Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2017-04-19 16:37 GMT+02:00 James Cowgill :

> On 12/04/17 16:43, James Cowgill wrote:
>

Hi James,



> > Do you still think we should keep composite given what Gabriel has said?
>
> No reply. Since I now tend to agree with the people who think composite
> should be removed, I've gone ahead reassigned the bug.
>

Sorry for late answer ...
Even if I still believe it is harmless to have composite in debian archive
it is ok for me to remove it if there is such upstream (Gabriel's) request.

Dear ftp-masters, please remove composite from unstable. It's been dead
> upstream for a few years now, a very similar alternative (hydrogen)
> exists, and the upstream maintainer has also suggested the package be
> removed.
>

Thank you for pushing this forward

best regards

mira

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[James Cowgill]

Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org
Control: retitle -1 RM: composite -- RoM; dead upstream
Control: severity -1 normal

Hi,

On 12/04/17 16:43, James Cowgill wrote:
> Jaromír,
> 
> Do you still think we should keep composite given what Gabriel has said?

No reply. Since I now tend to agree with the people who think composite
should be removed, I've gone ahead reassigned the bug.

Dear ftp-masters, please remove composite from unstable. It's been dead
upstream for a few years now, a very similar alternative (hydrogen)
exists, and the upstream maintainer has also suggested the package be
removed.

Thanks,
James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[James Cowgill]

Jaromír,

Do you still think we should keep composite given what Gabriel has said?

Should the small number of existing composite users be redirected to
hydrogen through a transitional package?

Thanks,
James

On 09/04/17 17:48, diqidoq | MAROQQO wrote:
> Hi Gabriel,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to chime in here. I really appreciate your
> open and clear statement about the status of the project. It helps me a
> lot here, since many seem not to get where I come from with this issue,
> which, by the way, was a recommendation on IRC #debian-next and not my
> first idea on the list how to solve this.
> 
> I hope you know that it never was my intension to offend anybody. I
> really appreciate the hard work all contributors give to their projects
> because I know how hard it can be. Thanks for your efforts to contribute
> to audio software on Linux. And thanks again for your open and unbiased
> support on this.
> 
> Greetings from Berlin!
> 
> On 04/08/2017 11:16 PM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm the developer of Composite. In my humble opinion, Composite should
>> never have been added to Debian. It was not ready. While it did offer a
>> little bit of useful functionality (the hydrogen drumkits as an LV2
>> plugin), it overall was the beginnings of a new project, and Debian
>> added it before it even developed a character of its own. It was never
>> intended that it would detract from or cause confusion with the original
>> Hydrogen project. The only reason why it looks like an old version of
>> Hydrogen is that I had not yet gotten around to a useable replacement
>> UI. And while I would love to go back to work on the project, for all
>> intents and purposes it's dead. I don't have time to work on it.
>>
>> And as compiler changes and libraries move forward, I don't think the
>> Debian devs should bother maintaining this package.
>>
>> Whoever added it to Debian I'm sure had good intentions, perhaps
>> thinking it would help the project. However, it did not help the project.
>>
>> I support the removal of Composite from Debian.
>>
>> -gabe
>>
> 
> ___
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
> pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[diqidoq | MAROQQO]

Hi James,

On 04/08/2017 04:27 PM, James Cowgill wrote:

I don't think I misunderstood, I just don't know much about hydrogen or
composite. Obviously the GUIs look almost identical, and I think it
would be better to drop composite if users can be switched to hydrogen
with no loss in functionality.


I agree with you.

On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:

I think (and hopefully you agree) that we
shouldn't be randomly removing packages without good reasons (some of
which we are currently discussing).


I agree with you.

On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:

I think FFmpeg and libav was a special case where there was lots of
pressure to only have one of them shipping as part of a release. It's
not the same here.


I agree with you, again. But as you can see from the status of the 
project, my concerns were justified.

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[diqidoq | MAROQQO]

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for taking the time to chime in here. I really appreciate your 
open and clear statement about the status of the project. It helps me a 
lot here, since many seem not to get where I come from with this issue, 
which, by the way, was a recommendation on IRC #debian-next and not my 
first idea on the list how to solve this.


I hope you know that it never was my intension to offend anybody. I 
really appreciate the hard work all contributors give to their projects 
because I know how hard it can be. Thanks for your efforts to contribute 
to audio software on Linux. And thanks again for your open and unbiased 
support on this.


Greetings from Berlin!

On 04/08/2017 11:16 PM, Gabriel Beddingfield wrote:

Hi all,

I'm the developer of Composite. In my humble opinion, Composite should
never have been added to Debian. It was not ready. While it did offer a
little bit of useful functionality (the hydrogen drumkits as an LV2
plugin), it overall was the beginnings of a new project, and Debian
added it before it even developed a character of its own. It was never
intended that it would detract from or cause confusion with the original
Hydrogen project. The only reason why it looks like an old version of
Hydrogen is that I had not yet gotten around to a useable replacement
UI. And while I would love to go back to work on the project, for all
intents and purposes it's dead. I don't have time to work on it.

And as compiler changes and libraries move forward, I don't think the
Debian devs should bother maintaining this package.

Whoever added it to Debian I'm sure had good intentions, perhaps
thinking it would help the project. However, it did not help the project.

I support the removal of Composite from Debian.

-gabe

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[diqidoq | MAROQQO]

On 04/08/2017 04:09 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:

Yes it is statistic

Are you joking!!! I am pro_audio user by profession you think that
pro_audio users are so silly!!! You can't be serious!

I still don't understand what scary you?

Having Hydrogen and Composite in archive together is totally harmless.
Only reported issue is some "confused Hydrogen users" ( or maybe you? )
... do you have some numbers how many of them ?

Maybe we can add note to Hydrogen manpages
"If you want launch Hydrogen double_click Hydrogen icon ... If you want
launch Composite double_click Composite icon"

Sorry for sarcasm, but really think we are solving here pseudo-problem. :/


Hi mira,

You maybe shouldn't get things too personal. Nobody is saying that YOU 
as a pro audio user are like the ones I was talking about. And to 
understand that they are kind of silly from what I sad, is far beyond of 
what I meant with that many of them are no developers and that not only 
a few of them often even do dip really deep into their OS and software 
nor code, etc. Sorry when my non native tongue mixes things up here for 
you, or that you are kind of sensitive about this, but to underline that 
you are a pro audio user who is not in that list, shows off, that we do 
not talk the same direction here. I am pro audio professional since 30 
years and have developed software for our studios and have lead many 
international music projects and I am pretty okay with my latest 
statement. Which has offended you maybe, but that wasn't my intension. 
Only that the install graph like this for an audio software package says 
nothing. And with "simplified" I meant too simple in its conclusion. Not 
because of being statistic. The statistics aren't the problem mostly, 
but its (possibly wrong) evaluation.


No, we do not solve "pseudo-problems" here. Only the personal parts of 
this discussion drift away IMHO. The problem is that you do not 
understand my motivation nor my intension and you do miss what I know 
about Hydrogen and Composite, as you can see by the very professional 
and clear statement of the developer of the software right after you 
here in the bug report. That is exactly what was my impression about the 
status of Composite and he confirmed it (Thanks Gabriel for chiming in).


Greetings from Berlin

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[Gabriel Beddingfield]

Hi all,

I'm the developer of Composite. In my humble opinion, Composite should
never have been added to Debian. It was not ready. While it did offer a
little bit of useful functionality (the hydrogen drumkits as an LV2
plugin), it overall was the beginnings of a new project, and Debian added
it before it even developed a character of its own. It was never intended
that it would detract from or cause confusion with the original Hydrogen
project. The only reason why it looks like an old version of Hydrogen is
that I had not yet gotten around to a useable replacement UI. And while I
would love to go back to work on the project, for all intents and purposes
it's dead. I don't have time to work on it.

And as compiler changes and libraries move forward, I don't think the
Debian devs should bother maintaining this package.

Whoever added it to Debian I'm sure had good intentions, perhaps thinking
it would help the project. However, it did not help the project.

I support the removal of Composite from Debian.

-gabe

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[James Cowgill]

On 08/04/17 14:01, diqidoq | MAROQQO wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughts on this, James, but let me reply on this clearly:
> 
> On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
>> If the functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen or
>> elsewhere then maybe composite can be removed on the basis that it's
>> obsolete and has little upstream activity, but since I don't use these
>> packages I don't really have an opinion on this.
> 
> I think you misunderstood sth here. It is rather upside down. Not the
> functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen, IT IS Hydrogen
> and ever was, and Composite came later to just made a fork/clone of the
> code of Hydrogen by promising to make something else out of it what
> never happend.

I don't think I misunderstood, I just don't know much about hydrogen or
composite. Obviously the GUIs look almost identical, and I think it
would be better to drop composite if users can be switched to hydrogen
with no loss in functionality.

> On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
>> While you have some good points, I don't think any of them are
>> sufficient reason to force the removal
> 
> Another point where I thought it should be upside down. Shouldn't there
> be rather reasons to add a package, not reasons to remove one which is
> maybe a duplicate? What were the reasons of this package to be added?

We're not talking about adding a package. We're talking about either
keeping or removing a package. I think (and hopefully you agree) that we
shouldn't be randomly removing packages without good reasons (some of
which we are currently discussing).

> On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
>> Beyond that there are no other hard rules other than the package
>> should have a maintainer willing to support it.
> 
> Wow. o.O ... This is a really hard statement. Are you aware of this?
> Does Debian security team agree with that?

I don't think there is anything wrong with what I said. Did you actually
read the link I posted?

It says:
> In addition, the packages in main
[...]
> must not be so buggy that we refuse to support them

That should cover the security team's concerns. In reality the release
team has the final say on all this, but they use policy as a guide.

> On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
>> There are a lot of old packages in Debian which are
>> not going away any time soon.
> 
> This makes absolutely sense to me, but not with duplicated or mistakenly
> added packages without warnings. Debian has removed ffmpeg and replaced
> it by libav in the days when libav was forking and later has corrected
> this issue very quick in the next release cycle and brought back ffmpeg.
> So I think it is not about "every thing keeps being in when it is in" ...

I think FFmpeg and libav was a special case where there was lots of
pressure to only have one of them shipping as part of a release. It's
not the same here.

James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2017-04-08 12:49 GMT+02:00 MAROQQO digital media :

Hi MAROQQO


> On 04/08/2017 08:52 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>
>> composite package builds fine and seems to have it's own users ... by
>> popcon
>> https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=composite
>>
>
> To simply say "well, it has its own users" by showing install graphs of
> 150 installs is a very simplified point.


Yes it is statistic


> Sure it has statistically it's "own users". Every available download has
> that. Pro audio users tend to test available software by just grabbing it
> for a go while they often miss a good overview at first. But it says
> nothing about its real usage. Pro audio users often even have no real clue
> about the OS they run.


Are you joking!!! I am pro_audio user by profession you think that
pro_audio users are so silly!!! You can't be serious!


> That's why there are so many pro audio multi-packaged bundles around.
> Since I have tested the package I can say that this a 100% copy of an old
> Hydrogen version without progression. Many new users will not know what
> they have here, since there is no explanation about it. It's a lil' bit
> like the mess with ffmpeg and libav and the misleading notice while
> installation back in the days. The reason for the install statistics even
> more prove my worries but do not invalidate them.
>

I still don't understand what scary you?

Having Hydrogen and Composite in archive together is totally harmless.
Only reported issue is some "confused Hydrogen users" ( or maybe you? ) ...
do you have some numbers how many of them ?

Maybe we can add note to Hydrogen manpages
"If you want launch Hydrogen double_click Hydrogen icon ... If you want
launch Composite double_click Composite icon"

Sorry for sarcasm, but really think we are solving here pseudo-problem. :/

mira

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[diqidoq | MAROQQO]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, James, but let me reply on this clearly:

On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:

If the functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen or
elsewhere then maybe composite can be removed on the basis that it's
obsolete and has little upstream activity, but since I don't use these
packages I don't really have an opinion on this.


I think you misunderstood sth here. It is rather upside down. Not the 
functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen, IT IS Hydrogen 
and ever was, and Composite came later to just made a fork/clone of the 
code of Hydrogen by promising to make something else out of it what 
never happend.



On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
> While you have some good points, I don't think any of them are
> sufficient reason to force the removal

Another point where I thought it should be upside down. Shouldn't there 
be rather reasons to add a package, not reasons to remove one which is 
maybe a duplicate? What were the reasons of this package to be added?


On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
> Beyond that there are no other hard rules other than the package
> should have a maintainer willing to support it.

Wow. o.O ... This is a really hard statement. Are you aware of this? 
Does Debian security team agree with that?


On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
> There are a lot of old packages in Debian which are
> not going away any time soon.

This makes absolutely sense to me, but not with duplicated or mistakenly 
added packages without warnings. Debian has removed ffmpeg and replaced 
it by libav in the days when libav was forking and later has corrected 
this issue very quick in the next release cycle and brought back ffmpeg. 
So I think it is not about "every thing keeps being in when it is in" ...

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[diqidoq | MAROQQO]

Hello Jonas,

well there is maybe a language barrier causing this?

On 04/08/2017 01:26 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Please bring up that question at debian-devel mailinglist - this
bugreport is the wrong place for that.


That was not another issue report. It was a rhetorical statement to 
explain parts of my motivation on this issue. This is not intended and 
never will be an issue to randomly discuss or consume time of you, me 
and others. It is part of my relation to Debian.Nothing else.


On 04/08/2017 01:26 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Please file separate bugreports for each concrete issue: Discussing
> "the isssue of this package having too many issues" is far easier to
> do when each issue is tracked individually.

Jonas, again, this is part of the points to make at this issue, it is 
part of the argumentation. If there would be no point to make, there 
would be no issue. These points are reasons for that issue, not other 
issues. Do you read the whole report completely? This is officialism and 
bureaucracy leads to nowhere. All the points were clearly stated and 
listed and underlined with sources. There is nothing more I can do for it.

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[trebmuh]

Hi,

if I remember correctly, one of the main goal for the Composite fork of 
Hydrogen, was to get Hydrogen as a LV2 plug.
I just tried it with jalv.select, jalv, jalv.gtk, jalv.gtk3, jalv.gtkmm, 
and jalv.qt and all of them gaves me :

Feature http://lv2plug.in/ns/ext/event is not supported

So I would say that the LV2 versio doesn't work.

Last commit is from March 2013 : 
https://gitlab.com/composite/composite/commits/master


For my point of view, Composite doesn't bring in anything better that 
what Hydrogen does. Hence I'd approve for it to be removed.


Hope that helps,
Olivier

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[James Cowgill]

Control: severity -1 important

[^ Prevent autoremoval while this is disputed]
[+CC Gabriel who may be interested]

Hi,

On 08/04/17 11:49, MAROQQO digital media wrote:
> To be honest I really wonder about what qualifies a package to be added
> to the repositories of Debian, since I used to tend to the impression,
> that Debian is very picky about it (one of the reasons I choose Debian).

These are the rules:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main

Beyond that there are no other hard rules other than the package should
have a maintainer willing to support it.

> On 04/08/2017 08:52 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> I am very sorry that some hydrogen users are confused but I personally
>> don't think it is reason strong enough to remove composite from debian
>> archive
> 
> Well, this is not the only reason if you read my start post and btw ...
> it actually is one of the smaller points actually, and "Some" is the
> wrong word here since - as I stated - Composite is a complete copy of an
> 8 year old Hydrogen version package and many acknowledged users, who
> know which audio software is available on Linux don't even know this
> package. They were very confused when I told them about it. Even audio
> software developers were confused. It's odd and I can't believe that the
> fact that it is a simple copy of old code which has never started to
> grow and shows no progress isn't reason enough. I really winder how this
> even came in? I am sad that you don't go into any further details about
> all other points I stated and that a simple install graph which grows by
> itself over the years is reason enough for you to say it's ok.
> 
> Again:
> 
>  + Composite describes its own status as "a broken version of Hydrogen"
> (Look at the sources I have posted, its in their own words)
>  + This status has never been changed since 2009
>  + Composite stuck in early alpha and completely feels, acts, looks and
> works like Hydrogen, a well known and in active development being audio
> application with the exactly same GUI and features atm.
>  + The road map shows that this package is in early state and only
> confuses Hydrogen users now since this fork has never left any copy
>  paste state yet despite of its name

[Disclaimer: I do not use hydrogen or composite]

While you have some good points, I don't think any of them are
sufficient reason to force the removal of this package or could even be
regarded as bugs. There are a lot of old packages in Debian which are
not going away any time soon.

If the functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen or
elsewhere then maybe composite can be removed on the basis that it's
obsolete and has little upstream activity, but since I don't use these
packages I don't really have an opinion on this.

> I am even not sure if there isn't a copyright infringement going on
> since Hydrogen code is published on Github under GPL 2 license which
> resticts you to only use this code by using the same license, but the
> "author" of Composer has no license statement on their site at all. I am
> sorry for sounding offending here, this is not my purpose, but I really
> really wonder about all this ignored points.   

The source is correctly licensed under the GPL. Whether the license is
stated on the upstream website doesn't really matter.

James



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting MAROQQO digital media (2017-04-08 12:49:00)
> Since I have tested the package I can say that this a 100% copy of an 
> old Hydrogen version without progression.

Quite an interesting claim.


> To be honest I really wonder about what qualifies a package to be 
> added to the repositories of Debian, since I used to tend to the 
> impression, that Debian is very picky about it (one of the reasons I 
> choose Debian).

Please bring up that question at debian-devel mailinglist - this 
bugreport is the wrong place for that.


> On 04/08/2017 08:52 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> > I am very sorry that some hydrogen users are confused but I 
> > personally don't think it is reason strong enough to remove 
> > composite from debian archive
> 
> Well, this is not the only reason if you read my start post and btw 
> ... it actually is one of the smaller points actually,

Please file separate bugreports for each concrete issue: Discussing "the 
isssue of this package having too many issues" is far easier to do when 
each issue is tracked individually.


 - Jonas

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

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


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[MAROQQO digital media]

Hi, thanks for your thoughts on this, Jaromir but:

On 04/08/2017 08:52 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:

composite package builds fine and seems to have it's own users ... by popcon
https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=composite


To simply say "well, it has its own users" by showing install graphs of 
150 installs is a very simplified point. Sure it has statistically it's 
"own users". Every available download has that. Pro audio users tend to 
test available software by just grabbing it for a go while they often 
miss a good overview at first. But it says nothing about its real usage. 
Pro audio users often even have no real clue about the OS they run. 
That's why there are so many pro audio multi-packaged bundles around. 
Since I have tested the package I can say that this a 100% copy of an 
old Hydrogen version without progression. Many new users will not know 
what they have here, since there is no explanation about it. It's a lil' 
bit like the mess with ffmpeg and libav and the misleading notice while 
installation back in the days. The reason for the install statistics 
even more prove my worries but do not invalidate them.


To be honest I really wonder about what qualifies a package to be added 
to the repositories of Debian, since I used to tend to the impression, 
that Debian is very picky about it (one of the reasons I choose Debian).


On 04/08/2017 08:52 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:

I am very sorry that some hydrogen users are confused but I personally
don't think it is reason strong enough to remove composite from debian archive


Well, this is not the only reason if you read my start post and btw ... 
it actually is one of the smaller points actually, and "Some" is the 
wrong word here since - as I stated - Composite is a complete copy of an 
8 year old Hydrogen version package and many acknowledged users, who 
know which audio software is available on Linux don't even know this 
package. They were very confused when I told them about it. Even audio 
software developers were confused. It's odd and I can't believe that the 
fact that it is a simple copy of old code which has never started to 
grow and shows no progress isn't reason enough. I really winder how this 
even came in? I am sad that you don't go into any further details about 
all other points I stated and that a simple install graph which grows by 
itself over the years is reason enough for you to say it's ok.


Again:

 + Composite describes its own status as "a broken version of Hydrogen" 
(Look at the sources I have posted, its in their own words)

 + This status has never been changed since 2009
 + Composite stuck in early alpha and completely feels, acts, looks and 
works like Hydrogen, a well known and in active development being audio 
application with the exactly same GUI and features atm.

 + The road map shows that this package is in early state and only
confuses Hydrogen users now since this fork has never left any copy
 paste state yet despite of its name

I am even not sure if there isn't a copyright infringement going on 
since Hydrogen code is published on Github under GPL 2 license which 
resticts you to only use this code by using the same license, but the 
"author" of Composer has no license statement on their site at all. I am 
sorry for sounding offending here, this is not my purpose, but I really 
really wonder about all this ignored points.	

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[Jaromír Mikeš]

2017-04-07 17:00 GMT+02:00 Digidog :

> Package: composite
> Version: 0.006.2+dfsg0-7
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> Request
> ---
>  + Please remove the Composite package from the Debian repositories in
> near future.
>
> Reasons
> ---
>  + Composite describes its own status as "a broken version of Hydrogen"
>  + This status has never been changed since 2009
>  + Composite stucks in early alpha and completely feels, acts, looks and
> works like Hydrogen, a well known and in active development being audio
> application with the exactly same GUI and features atm.
>  + The roadmap shows that this package is in early state and only confuses
> Hydrogen users now since this fork has never left any copy paste state yet
> despite of its name
>
> Sources
> ---
>  + http://riggable.com/composite/
>  + http://riggable.com/composite/roadmap.html
>  + http://riggable.com/composite/faq.html#q.what-is-composite
>  + https://sourceforge.net/p/hydrogen/mailman/message/23947443/
>  + http://www.hydrogen-music.org/hcms/
>

Hi,

composite package builds fine and seems to have it's own users ... by popcon
https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=composite

I am maintaining packages with lower popcon too ;)

I am very sorry that some hydrogen users are confused but I personally
don't think
it is reason strong enough to remove composite from debian archive

Thank you for reporting

best regards

mira

Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.

[Digidog]

Package: composite
Version: 0.006.2+dfsg0-7
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

Dear Maintainer,

Request
---
 + Please remove the Composite package from the Debian repositories in near 
future.

Reasons
---
 + Composite describes its own status as "a broken version of Hydrogen"
 + This status has never been changed since 2009
 + Composite stucks in early alpha and completely feels, acts, looks and works 
like Hydrogen, a well known and in active development being audio application 
with the exactly same GUI and features atm.
 + The roadmap shows that this package is in early state and only confuses 
Hydrogen users now since this fork has never left any copy paste state yet 
despite of its name

Sources
---
 + http://riggable.com/composite/
 + http://riggable.com/composite/roadmap.html
 + http://riggable.com/composite/faq.html#q.what-is-composite
 + https://sourceforge.net/p/hydrogen/mailman/message/23947443/
 + http://www.hydrogen-music.org/hcms/

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages composite depends on:
ii  composite-data0.006.2+dfsg0-7
ii  jackd 5
ii  libc6 2.24-9
ii  libflac++6v5  1.3.2-1
ii  libflac8  1.3.2-1
ii  libgcc1   1:6.3.0-11
ii  libjack-jackd2-0 [libjack-0.125]  1.9.10+20150825git1ed50c92~dfsg-5
ii  liblrdf0  0.6.1-1
ii  libqt4-network4:4.8.7+dfsg-11
ii  libqt4-xml4:4.8.7+dfsg-11
ii  libqtcore44:4.8.7+dfsg-11
ii  libqtgui4 4:4.8.7+dfsg-11
ii  libsndfile1   1.0.27-1+b1
ii  libstdc++66.3.0-11
ii  libtar0   1.2.20-7
ii  zlib1g1:1.2.8.dfsg-5

composite recommends no packages.

composite suggests no packages.

-- debconf-show failed