Processed: Re: Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 ftp.debian.org Bug #859808 [composite] composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet. Bug reassigned from package 'composite' to 'ftp.debian.org'. No longer marked as found in versions composite/0.006.2+dfsg0-7. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #859808 to the same values previously set > retitle -1 RM: composite -- RoM; dead upstream Bug #859808 [ftp.debian.org] composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet. Changed Bug title to 'RM: composite -- RoM; dead upstream' from 'composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.'. > severity -1 normal Bug #859808 [ftp.debian.org] RM: composite -- RoM; dead upstream Severity set to 'normal' from 'important' -- 859808: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=859808 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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" ... ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processed: Re: Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
Processing control commands: > severity -1 important Bug #859808 [composite] composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet. Severity set to 'important' from 'grave' -- 859808: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=859808 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#859808: composite: Composite not ready for being qualified package of Debian yet.
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 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers