Re: Adoptiong ecasound
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-01-31 10:36, Joel Roth wrote: > >> otoh, i guess this would not have pulled in automatic ruby/python >> dependencies, as the shebang does. > > Do the existing shebangs in the ruby/python test scripts > accomplish this? oh, i thought you said someting like this. i really don't know (what you said, came to me as a surprise, but i quite liked it) fgmar IOhannes > >>> >>> I tried to rename the source package ecasound2.2 -> >>> ecasound. However encountered some error and reverted >> >> it would be interesting to know "some". > > Reinhard suggests that it might have been due to > changing only d/control and not d/changelog. > > I'll have another go. > > Cheers, > > Joel > >> fgmadf >> IOhannes > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1Gia8ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTftwCgk5h7zXtR8o06SYVGExzakAr/ n9MAn04u425PiiZJxMT2wvqMzJsLAf8V =PeFc -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:14:45AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2011-01-31 08:53, Joel Roth wrote: > > Now running lintian... > > W: ecasound: manpage-has-errors-from-man > > usr/share/man/man1/ecasound.1.gz 61: warning: numeric expression expected > > (got `c') > > i fixed the remaining errors in the ecasound manpage. > > > E: libecasound-ruby1.8: ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep > > ./usr/lib/ruby/1.8/ecasound.rb > > Finished running lintian. > > > > I think I've fixed the error, by modifying the shebang line > > to ruby1.8 > > > actually i initially thought it would be better to remove the executable > bits from the scripts (by running something like > $ chmod a+x $(pkgdir)/usr/share/pyshared/pyeca.py > $(pkgdir)/usr/share/pyshared/ecacontrol.py > $(pkgdir)/usr/share/pyshared/eci.py $(pkgdir)/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/ecasound.rb > in the the dh_fixperms section. That does seem neater. > otoh, i guess this would not have pulled in automatic ruby/python > dependencies, as the shebang does. Do the existing shebangs in the ruby/python test scripts accomplish this? > > > > I tried to rename the source package ecasound2.2 -> > > ecasound. However encountered some error and reverted > > it would be interesting to know "some". Reinhard suggests that it might have been due to changing only d/control and not d/changelog. I'll have another go. Cheers, Joel > fgmadf > IOhannes -- Joel Roth ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-01-31 08:53, Joel Roth wrote: > Now running lintian... > W: ecasound: manpage-has-errors-from-man > usr/share/man/man1/ecasound.1.gz 61: warning: numeric expression expected > (got `c') i fixed the remaining errors in the ecasound manpage. > E: libecasound-ruby1.8: ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep > ./usr/lib/ruby/1.8/ecasound.rb > Finished running lintian. > > I think I've fixed the error, by modifying the shebang line > to ruby1.8 actually i initially thought it would be better to remove the executable bits from the scripts (by running something like $ chmod a+x $(pkgdir)/usr/share/pyshared/pyeca.py $(pkgdir)/usr/share/pyshared/ecacontrol.py $(pkgdir)/usr/share/pyshared/eci.py $(pkgdir)/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/ecasound.rb in the the dh_fixperms section. otoh, i guess this would not have pulled in automatic ruby/python dependencies, as the shebang does. > > I tried to rename the source package ecasound2.2 -> > ecasound. However encountered some error and reverted it would be interesting to know "some". fgmadf IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1GfYUACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvR5UACfVnR7tUL0qi6EiOpOUQpZlTB3 QrIAni9VtDi8soIQ1SwAPld159L6ZgMb =Pocf -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 08:53:17 (CET), Joel Roth wrote: > I tried to rename the source package ecasound2.2 -> > ecasound. However encountered some error and reverted > it. that involves two changes: debian/changelog and debian/control did you miss a step perhaps? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:04:09AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:10:31 (CET), Joel Roth wrote: > > > One question I have is about handling bug relationships for all the > > renamed packages. > > > > For example, can a new source package 'ecasound' close bugs > > submitted against package ecasound2.2? > > yes, you can accidentally or on purpose close bugs in other packages in > debian/changelog. As soon ecasound2.2 is superseeded, you need to > manually reassign the remaining packages, though. Thanks Reinhard! Okay, so far so good. I have renamed all packages, removing the 2.2 suffix, and the source package builds. The remaining lintian complaints are: Now running lintian... W: ecasound: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/ecasound.1.gz 61: warning: numeric expression expected (got `c') E: libecasound-ruby1.8: ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep ./usr/lib/ruby/1.8/ecasound.rb Finished running lintian. I think I've fixed the error, by modifying the shebang line to ruby1.8 I tried to rename the source package ecasound2.2 -> ecasound. However encountered some error and reverted it. Regards, Joel > -- > Gruesse/greetings, > Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- Joel Roth ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 05:10:31 (CET), Joel Roth wrote: > One question I have is about handling bug relationships for all the > renamed packages. > > For example, can a new source package 'ecasound' close bugs > submitted against package ecasound2.2? yes, you can accidentally or on purpose close bugs in other packages in debian/changelog. As soon ecasound2.2 is superseeded, you need to manually reassign the remaining packages, though. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > Hi all, > I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good > candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team. > > The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2' > even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream). > >From the README.Debian: > > ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series; > and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two > versions to coexist. > > For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains > the ecasound2.2 name. > > I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just > 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be > to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'. > Is this right? I haven't see a reply to this. One question I have is about handling bug relationships for all the renamed packages. For example, can a new source package 'ecasound' close bugs submitted against package ecasound2.2? Best, Joel -- Joel Roth ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 05:02:50PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote: Here is the output from 'apt-cache showpkg' on my sid distribution. [snip] All of the packages depending on these packages appear to be within the ecasound source package. Based on this information, it looks like we could go through a renaming without harming others. Check with build-rdeps (from devscripts package) too. - 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
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > Hi all, > I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good > candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team. > > The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2' > even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream). > >From the README.Debian: > > ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series; > and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two > versions to coexist. > > For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains > the ecasound2.2 name. > > I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just > 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be > to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'. > Is this right? Having had a look, I agree it would be cleaner for the source package to be named ecasound. And for all the others to be renamed, too. $ grep Package: debian/control Package: ecasound Package: libecasound2.2-dev Package: libecasoundc2.2-dev Package: libkvutils2.2-dev Package: python-ecasound2.2 Package: libecasound-ruby1.8 (??) Package: ecasound-el Here is the output from 'apt-cache showpkg' on my sid distribution. Package: ecasound2.2 Reverse Depends: ecasound,ecasound2.2 2.3.2-1 Package: libecasound2.2-dev Reverse Depends: Package: libecasoundc2.2-dev Reverse Depends: Package: libkvutils2.2-dev Reverse Depends: libecasound2.2-dev,libkvutils2.2-dev Package: python-ecasound2.2 Reverse Depends: ecasound,python-ecasound2.2 2.7.0-1.1 Package: libecasound-ruby1.8 Reverse Depends: All of the packages depending on these packages appear to be within the ecasound source package. Based on this information, it looks like we could go through a renaming without harming others. If we need to be extra-careful, we could use Provides: field to supply aliases to the old package names. Does that seem right? > Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian > warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary > packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from > scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with > 'ecasound', see above). What do you think? You must have done a lot since then; there are only a few lintian warnings left. Best, Joel > Cheers -- Joel Roth ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 01:59:03PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> I think it will be great to clean up and maintain the
> ecasound source package. I'm no expert in C, but I maintain
> a couple packages that depend on ecasound, and have an
> interest in seeing Debian packages being maintained.
>
> Regarding the name, the status-quo isn't especially bad.
> the 2.2 refers to the C library API, which is still current,
> even tho the ecasound software is up to version 2.7.x. For
> example, the header file package for using the ecasound C
> library is called libecasoundc2.2-dev. The python bindings
> are in python-ecasound2.2.
>
> I'll be glad to bring any issues we encounter upstream to
> developers on the Ecasound mailing list.
If you want to help, whatever help you can provide is welcome.
Have a look at the debian/TODO file [0] to see what needs to be done.
Thank you
[0]
http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia/ecasound.git;a=blob;f=debian/TODO;h=98c19f390c57619c117966a3f3fbb7e2414783d8;hb=HEAD
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > Hi all, > I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good > candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team. > > The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2' > even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream). > >From the README.Debian: > > ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series; > and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two > versions to coexist. > > For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains > the ecasound2.2 name. > I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just > 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be > to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'. > Is this right? > > Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian > warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary > packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from > scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with > 'ecasound', see above). What do you think? > > Cheers > > P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with this, I'll push everything > to git as soon as I finish initial clean-up. Hi, I think it will be great to clean up and maintain the ecasound source package. I'm no expert in C, but I maintain a couple packages that depend on ecasound, and have an interest in seeing Debian packages being maintained. Regarding the name, the status-quo isn't especially bad. the 2.2 refers to the C library API, which is still current, even tho the ecasound software is up to version 2.7.x. For example, the header file package for using the ecasound C library is called libecasoundc2.2-dev. The python bindings are in python-ecasound2.2. I'll be glad to bring any issues we encounter upstream to developers on the Ecasound mailing list. Joel -- Joel Roth ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:20:39PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Please allow for more than two days. Sometimes people are just busy.
Didn't mean to be obsessive, it was just an update.
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 17:01, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: >> Hi all, >> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good >> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team. >> >> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2' >> even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream). >> From the README.Debian: >> >> ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series; >> and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two >> versions to coexist. >> >> For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains >> the ecasound2.2 name. >> >> I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just >> 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be >> to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'. >> Is this right? >> >> Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian >> warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary >> packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from >> scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with >> 'ecasound', see above). What do you think? >> >> Cheers >> >> P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with this, I'll push everything >> to git as soon as I finish initial clean-up. > > Does anyone have anything to say? Please allow for more than two days. Sometimes people are just busy. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream).
> From the README.Debian:
>
> ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series;
> and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two
> versions to coexist.
>
> For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains
> the ecasound2.2 name.
>
> I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just
> 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be
> to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'.
> Is this right?
>
> Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian
> warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary
> packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from
> scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with
> 'ecasound', see above). What do you think?
>
> Cheers
>
> P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with this, I'll push everything
> to git as soon as I finish initial clean-up.
Does anyone have anything to say?
Anyway, I've just pushed a mostly-working of the clean and updated
package version on git [0]. There are still some issues (some remaining
lintian warnings, broken python module, old d/copyright, ...), if anyone
wants to help the package is there.
Cheers
[0] http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia/ecasound.git;a=summary
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Adoptiong ecasound
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 07:59:38PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
> candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
>
> The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
> even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream).
> From the README.Debian:
>
> ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series;
> and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two
> versions to coexist.
>
> For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains
> the ecasound2.2 name.
>
> I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just
> 'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be
> to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'.
> Is this right?
>
> Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian
> warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary
> packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from
> scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with
> 'ecasound', see above). What do you think?
>
> Cheers
>
> P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with this, I'll push everything
> to git as soon as I finish initial clean-up.
I think something went bad sending this email. From the web archive of the
mailing list [0] it seems cut in a half.
Anyway, see above for the complete message if you didn't get it.
Cheers
[0]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2011-January/015469.html
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Adoptiong ecasound
Hi all,
I've just adopted the bug #520271 (RFA: ecasound2.2), I think it is a good
candidate to get maintained by the Multimedia Team.
The main problem I see is that the source package is named 'ecasound2.2'
even if the current version is 2.7.0 (2.7.2 if you consider upstream).
>From the README.Debian:
ecasound2.2 release was a major change from 2.0 series;
and that was the reason for ecasound2.2 package name; we had two
versions to coexist.
For transition purposes Debian source package name still retains
the ecasound2.2 name.
I think this may lead to confusion and renaming the source package to just
'ecasound' would make things cleaner and clearer. AFAIK a solution would be
to upload the new 'ecasound' and ask for removal for the 'ecasound2.2'.
Is this right?
Also, there are a lot of problems with the packaging (e.g. 24 lintian
warnings, "ancient" packaging and a lot of mess with the generated binary
packages) that would probably make easier to re-start packaging from
scratch (this would be made easier by replacing 'ecasound2.2' with
'ecasound', see above). What do you think?
Cheers
P.S. If anyone is interested in helping with this, I'll push everything
to git as soon as I finish initial clean-up.
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;;eg;say~~reverse'
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
