Re: Dbus-c++ Debian package maintainership.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:29:35PM +1100, Luke Yelavich wrote: Greetings all. Hi! If the team decides to not maintain this package, then we need to either make sure the package gets a maintainer in Debian from somewhere, or, we talk to Upstream about alternative solutions. I understand and accept in advance any reasons given to not take over maintainership of dbus-c++. Let me add the following statement from ffado-devel to the discussion: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=26942187 --- maybe the unbundling of dbus-c++ was premature. Upstream appear not to do any releases nor do they seem to have arrived at a stable API yet. And downstreams have source incompatible versions of it or don't have it at all. --- If we arrive at the conclusion that dbus-c++ is unmaintainable, I'm happy to re-add the embedded dbus-c++ bits upstream. Though I have commit rights, we could also do it locally with a quilt patch. Just my €0.02 Cheers ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Dbus-c++ Debian package maintainership.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 08:19:50AM +0100, Adrian Knoth wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:29:35PM +1100, Luke Yelavich wrote: If the team decides to not maintain this package, then we need to either make sure the package gets a maintainer in Debian from somewhere, or, we talk to Upstream about alternative solutions. I understand and accept in advance any reasons given to not take over maintainership of dbus-c++. Let me add the following statement from ffado-devel to the discussion: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=26942187 --- maybe the unbundling of dbus-c++ was premature. Upstream appear not to do any releases nor do they seem to have arrived at a stable API yet. And downstreams have source incompatible versions of it or don't have it at all. --- If we arrive at the conclusion that dbus-c++ is unmaintainable, I'm happy to re-add the embedded dbus-c++ bits upstream. Though I have commit rights, we could also do it locally with a quilt patch. The very fact of one other package using the same library is to me proof that we (Debian) should maintain dbus-c++ as a separate package despite upstreams possibly feeling it relevant to ship it internally. I would certainly hope that upstreams, if internalizing, does so without a) making it difficult to instead link against a system shared library or b) forking it by making local hacks to local copy of dbus-c++ code. I find it inappropriate for this team to maintain dbus-c++ - it is not specific to Multimedia. I would be happy to join forces with you, Luke, on maintaining dbus-c++ at the collab-maint area or in some other team more appropriate for this. I won't call it sponsoring as that is easily associated with you are responsible, I am your mentor which might (or might not) be the initial situation but should not the atmosphere we are aiming at - neither here in the Debian Multimedia team nor in another team formed for the maintainance of dbus-c++. As you may have noticed from earlier conversations here on the list, I do have some strong principles in the way I handle packages: I use CDBS, not short-form dh. You need not be fluent in CDBS due to this - I am ok with either guiding you or taking care of the parts directly tied to juggling CDBS, but if you for some reason have _opposite_ principles then obviously you are better off teaming up with someone else :-) - 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: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Dbus-c++ Debian package maintainership.
Greetings all. Recently a new version of libffado was uploaded to experimental, which was synced to Ubuntu natty. With the new libffado revision, there were 2 new dependencies added, libconfig and dbus-c++. I am working to get these new dependencies into main, and whilst doing so, it was noted that dbus-c++ is currently orphaned in Debian. One requirement for packages being included in main for Ubuntu is good maintenance attention both in Ubuntu and Debian. I have checked Ubuntu and Debian, and including libffado, there are 2 packages in total that use dbus-c++, the other package being gnote. Since I suspect that libffado is the more actively developed of the 2, I am wondering whether the pkg-multimedia team should consider taking over maintainership. I think that its in the team's best interest to do so, due to the the dependency from libffado. Since I am a member of this team, I'd be happy to help maintain the package, and would request sponsorship from a member of this team when an upload is required. If the team decides to not maintain this package, then we need to either make sure the package gets a maintainer in Debian from somewhere, or, we talk to Upstream about alternative solutions. I understand and accept in advance any reasons given to not take over maintainership of dbus-c++. Thanks for your consideration. Luke ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers