Re: Adoptiong ecasound

2011-01-31 Thread Joel Roth
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

2011-01-31 Thread IOhannes m zmoelnig
-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

2011-01-30 Thread Jonas Smedegaard

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

2011-01-30 Thread Joel Roth
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

2011-01-30 Thread Reinhard Tartler
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

2011-01-30 Thread Joel Roth
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

2011-01-25 Thread Alessandro Ghedini
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+;inidehG ordnasselA;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

2011-01-22 Thread Alessandro Ghedini
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+;inidehG ordnasselA;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

2011-01-22 Thread Joel Roth
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

2011-01-21 Thread Alessandro Ghedini
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+;inidehG ordnasselA;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

2011-01-21 Thread Felipe Sateler
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 17:01, Alessandro Ghedini al3x...@gmail.com 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

2011-01-20 Thread Alessandro Ghedini
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+;inidehG ordnasselA;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