Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2011-04-26 18:40, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > I am not saying the same version of the same Makefile sure. > What made the current thing hard to fix? nothing. it was trivial. > This HURD/kFreeBSD > build issue was going to be fixed upstream anyway, so I don't see the > need to have a Debian-specific fix. there is nothing Debian specific in the fix. as a matter of fact, the fix is virtually identical from what i expect upstream to do. however, all of those packages have a debian FTBFS bugreport for some months now, which nobody cared about. with my maintainer hat on, i'd say that i don't know whether upstream cares about fixing the issue, since the template Makefile has been updated for a while but the upstream package Makefiles have not. upstream probably has more urgent things to do than fixing kFreeBSD builds (which virtually only appear on some exotic Debian platforms) therefore, i prefer bugs to be fixed now rather than relying on upstream. fgmasdr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk22+78ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQkCwCfVURt5S3OrCqSoRgBTIwWGBd8 VhQAoN/69nArC+EdUHNWgqShuWScbUfj =IrGT -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: please upload: pd-pdogg
On Apr 25, 2011, at 1:44 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/25/2011 06:13 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: I'd like to keep the short-form dh packages i think everybody now agrees that what we are discussing should be irrelevant of whether a specific package uses dh or cdbs or whatever. that I've done as they are, rather not, as some of those packages have an RC-bug filed (FTBFS), so we should fix that. using this same Makefile. I've spent a lot of time building up a whole unfortunately the upstream Makefile of the said packages is broken. since the upstream Makefile is essentially the same for all (your) packages (though their are different generations, with recent enough upstream Makefiles not exposing the problem) it would make sense to further centralize this Makefile, so any problem could be fixed by fixing this Makefile, rather than fixing 10 identical ones. it would be good to find a workflow that fits both your needs and allows for easy fixes of 'important' bugs. I am not saying the same version of the same Makefile, obviously bugs should be fixed, and this Makefile can be, should be, and is often updated. What made the current thing hard to fix? This HURD/kFreeBSD build issue was going to be fixed upstream anyway, so I don't see the need to have a Debian-specific fix. .hc Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/25/2011 06:13 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > I'd like to keep the short-form dh packages i think everybody now agrees that what we are discussing should be irrelevant of whether a specific package uses dh or cdbs or whatever. > that I've done as they are, rather not, as some of those packages have an RC-bug filed (FTBFS), so we should fix that. > using this same Makefile. I've spent a lot of time building up a whole unfortunately the upstream Makefile of the said packages is broken. since the upstream Makefile is essentially the same for all (your) packages (though their are different generations, with recent enough upstream Makefiles not exposing the problem) it would make sense to further centralize this Makefile, so any problem could be fixed by fixing this Makefile, rather than fixing 10 identical ones. it would be good to find a workflow that fits both your needs and allows for easy fixes of 'important' bugs. mfgsadr IOhannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk213R8ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvThBACg2W8OWZAnO1FUhoLABAqsEKnm qIoAoLkra5eN4+hQgwuVqJpZnWsuIiNh =GmEY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
On Apr 24, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 13:02, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading all (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid that? hmm, i'm not sure if i understand what you mean: i thought bugs can only be fixed by providing fixed versions. if a package is FTBFS because of broken bulid system, then the only solution i see is to fix the build system and re-upload the package. the only alternative i see, would be to centralize the build system, e.g. by providing a common makefile snippet that would be used instead of upstream's build system. i started centralizing once with a "pd-pkg-tools" library, but it ended up as a cdbs snippet (while almost all of the packages in question right now use shortform dh). also the cdbs snippet does not replace upstream build system, but rather fixes debian specifics (e.g. make shlibdeps work nicely with the non- standard extension) i'm not opposed at all to using a central (separately maintained) makefile, but hans has spent a lot of time crafting the current (upstream) makefile to make it work with a wide range of systems. the current template for the (upstream) Makefile already fixes the kFreeBSD/hurd problems, but the packages in question have not been updated (upstream) to use the new template, so i decided to fix the problem using packaging possibilities. This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do others think? I'd like to keep the short-form dh packages that I've done as they are, using this same Makefile. I've spent a lot of time building up a whole workflow to fit well into dh style, which is the dominant system of Debian-NYC which I'm part of, and the upstream workflow. Its great that there is also CDBS stuff, but for the stuff I maintain, I don't want to switch. .hc If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
On 11-04-24 at 09:39pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:26:37PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-04-24 at 12:16pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > > > > > This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is > > > essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What > > > do others think? > > > > Do you mean using CDBS for more of the pd packages, or reinventing > > CDBS on top of short-form dh, or something else? > > > > afaiu, it's more about replacing the upstream build-system than about the > actually used "debian build system". > e.g. > > include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk > DEB_MAKE_MAKEFILE=/usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile > > > and > > %: > dh $@ --buildsystem=makefile > > dh_auto_build_override: > dh_auto_build -- -f /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile > > > or similar (i prefer using cdbs, so i would need to read a bit more > about how to properly do it in dh) > > the interesting question is, whether /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile > is indeed a good idea and should be done; whether this makefile is > then used with CDBS or dh is another question personally i would be > fine with doing it in CDBS; however others might not agree, and hans > has chosen to use dh rather than cdbs, and i would rather accept his > decision; given that there are about 20 or more packages, and they are > maintained by several people (the pkgs are all maintained by p-m-m, > but still several people are primarily responsible for the pkgs), i > would thus prefer a build-system agnostic solution rather than have > futile discussions on vi/cdbs vs emacs/dh. > > mfgasdr > IOhannes > > PS: but of course the big pro for cdbs is, that its main maintainer is > active here and changes get into the pkg incredibly fast - e.g. my > pd.mk snippet (which, to repeat myself, ended up to NOT be a > replacement for the upstream makefile but rather a debian build system > amendement) > > PPS: ach ja, and of course i would gladly volunteer to do > pd-pkg-tools. I fully agree with keeping most possible as a distro-agnostic upstream Makefile. I was not trying to advocate CDBS here. :-) - 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: please upload: pd-pdogg
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:26:37PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 11-04-24 at 12:16pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > > > This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is > > essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do > > others think? > > Do you mean using CDBS for more of the pd packages, or reinventing CDBS > on top of short-form dh, or something else? > afaiu, it's more about replacing the upstream build-system than about the actually used "debian build system". e.g. include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk DEB_MAKE_MAKEFILE=/usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile and %: dh $@ --buildsystem=makefile dh_auto_build_override: dh_auto_build -- -f /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile or similar (i prefer using cdbs, so i would need to read a bit more about how to properly do it in dh) the interesting question is, whether /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile is indeed a good idea and should be done; whether this makefile is then used with CDBS or dh is another question personally i would be fine with doing it in CDBS; however others might not agree, and hans has chosen to use dh rather than cdbs, and i would rather accept his decision; given that there are about 20 or more packages, and they are maintained by several people (the pkgs are all maintained by p-m-m, but still several people are primarily responsible for the pkgs), i would thus prefer a build-system agnostic solution rather than have futile discussions on vi/cdbs vs emacs/dh. mfgasdr IOhannes PS: but of course the big pro for cdbs is, that its main maintainer is active here and changes get into the pkg incredibly fast - e.g. my pd.mk snippet (which, to repeat myself, ended up to NOT be a replacement for the upstream makefile but rather a debian build system amendement) PPS: ach ja, and of course i would gladly volunteer to do pd-pkg-tools. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
On 11-04-24 at 12:16pm, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 13:02, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > >> > >> I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading > >> all (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid > >> that? > >> > > hmm, i'm not sure if i understand what you mean: > > i thought bugs can only be fixed by providing fixed versions. > > if a package is FTBFS because of broken bulid system, then the only > > solution i see is to fix the build system and re-upload the package. > > > > the only alternative i see, would be to centralize the build system, > > e.g. by providing a common makefile snippet that would be used > > instead of upstream's build system. > > > > i started centralizing once with a "pd-pkg-tools" library, but it > > ended up as a cdbs snippet (while almost all of the packages in > > question right now use shortform dh). > > also the cdbs snippet does not replace upstream build system, but > > rather fixes debian specifics (e.g. make shlibdeps work nicely with > > the non-standard extension) > > > > i'm not opposed at all to using a central (separately maintained) > > makefile, but hans has spent a lot of time crafting the current > > (upstream) makefile to make it work with a wide range of systems. > > the current template for the (upstream) Makefile already fixes the > > kFreeBSD/hurd problems, but the packages in question have not been > > updated (upstream) to use the new template, so i decided to fix the > > problem using packaging possibilities. > > > This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is > essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do > others think? Do you mean using CDBS for more of the pd packages, or reinventing CDBS on top of short-form dh, or something 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
Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 13:02, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> >> I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading all >> (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid that? >> > hmm, i'm not sure if i understand what you mean: > i thought bugs can only be fixed by providing fixed versions. > if a package is FTBFS because of broken bulid system, then the only solution > i > see is to fix the build system and re-upload the package. > > the only alternative i see, would be to centralize the build system, e.g. by > providing a common makefile snippet that would be used instead of upstream's > build system. > > i started centralizing once with a "pd-pkg-tools" library, but it ended up as > a > cdbs snippet (while almost all of the packages in question right now use > shortform dh). > also the cdbs snippet does not replace upstream build system, but rather fixes > debian specifics (e.g. make shlibdeps work nicely with the non-standard > extension) > > i'm not opposed at all to using a central (separately maintained) makefile, > but > hans has spent a lot of time crafting the current (upstream) makefile to make > it > work with a wide range of systems. > the current template for the (upstream) Makefile already fixes the > kFreeBSD/hurd > problems, but the packages in question have not been updated (upstream) to use > the new template, so i decided to fix the problem using packaging > possibilities. This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do others think? -- 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: please upload: pd-pdogg
> > I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading all > (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid that? > hmm, i'm not sure if i understand what you mean: i thought bugs can only be fixed by providing fixed versions. if a package is FTBFS because of broken bulid system, then the only solution i see is to fix the build system and re-upload the package. the only alternative i see, would be to centralize the build system, e.g. by providing a common makefile snippet that would be used instead of upstream's build system. i started centralizing once with a "pd-pkg-tools" library, but it ended up as a cdbs snippet (while almost all of the packages in question right now use shortform dh). also the cdbs snippet does not replace upstream build system, but rather fixes debian specifics (e.g. make shlibdeps work nicely with the non-standard extension) i'm not opposed at all to using a central (separately maintained) makefile, but hans has spent a lot of time crafting the current (upstream) makefile to make it work with a wide range of systems. the current template for the (upstream) Makefile already fixes the kFreeBSD/hurd problems, but the packages in question have not been updated (upstream) to use the new template, so i decided to fix the problem using packaging possibilities. masdt IOhannes ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: please upload: pd-pdogg
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:35, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > some of the pd-packages have an FTBFS bug reported. > i fixed all of those packages (i knew of), and would appreciate if > somebody could upload the package, as given in the subject (i admit i > don't type this entire letter for each of the packages). I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading all (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid that? -- 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
please upload: pd-pdogg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 some of the pd-packages have an FTBFS bug reported. i fixed all of those packages (i knew of), and would appreciate if somebody could upload the package, as given in the subject (i admit i don't type this entire letter for each of the packages). Other changes in the package: - - added (short) Vcs stanzas (if there was none) - - Suggest "pd-libdir" rather than Depend on it, since each of those packages can be used perfectly well without pd-libdir installed; the latter only adds a bit more comfort - - minor cosmetic fixes to the package description (to keep lintian happy) i have NOT added myself to the uploaders, but i upated debian/changelog, so this gives some NMU-lintian warnings (which will go away if the real uploader touches the changelog, so i didn't bother), but apart from that the package appears to be lintian clean. the package has been build without problems in a pbuilder chroot. i pushed everything to [1]. please have a look and eventually upload (or comment) fgmasdr IOhannes [1] git://git.debian.org/pkg-multimedia/pd-pdogg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2u/TcACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvRJeQCfbS/WEpk4PymBPS49rNpMnywW 7DEAnRSMTaaJkfgRYBHLpmWdP+4pCnFt =zFk2 -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
