libldac 2.0.2.3+git20200429+ed310a0-4ubuntu1 in kinetic: universe/misc -> main
Override [y|N]? y
1 publication overridden.
** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribe
Yes, I agree. Let's downgrade #1 to a recommended TODO, as there is no upload
needed otherwise.
LGTM. MIR team ACK.
No security review is needed, so feel free to pull it in as a dependency
or seed the package.
** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
** Changed in: libl
Thanks Lukas for the review, I think it should be ready to be considered
again now
> Required TODOs:
> #1 please run `update-maintainer` on the package, to update debian/control
We will do in the next upload (if that's not a sync since we forwarded
the autopkgtest to Debian), I don't think that's
** Description changed:
[Availability]
The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe.
The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work on, it
fails on s390x but we don't support ubuntu-desktop there.
Upstream doesn't support big endian, which is known and reporte
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lto-disabled-list/26 fixes one of
the todos
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784
Title:
[MIR] libldac
To manage notifications about this bug go
After a reread, I have nothing to add compared to what Christian
mentioned :)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784
Title:
[MIR] libldac
To manage notifications about this bug go to
Hi Lukas
TL;DR for your questions:
- yes we need the seeded-in-ubuntu statement, but wording might be improved
- It is ok to be superficial (or even not) tested if shown to be reasonably
covered elsewhere
--- Details ---
> #0 "seeded-in-ubuntu" policy: Why could this be a problem
It is the in
I'd like to ask other fellow MIR team members some policy questions
about the above:
#0 "seeded-in-ubuntu" policy: Why could this be a problem (as listed in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionProcess), do we need to update the
wiki?
#2 testing/qa requirements: Should we accept a single "superfi
Review for Package: src:libldac
[Summary]
LDAC, LDAC/ABR is a codec by Sony, used for bluetooth headsets. The encoder is
Apache-2.0 licensed and can be used by pulseaudio or pipewire to transmit audio.
From a MIR POV the upstream package doesn't seem to be super well maintained
(slow/sporadic upda
** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Lukas Märdian (slyon)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784
Title:
[MIR] libldac
To manage notifications about this bu
Updated the description, we have added autopkgtests now
** Description changed:
[Availability]
The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe.
The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work on, it
fails on s390x but we don't support ubuntu-desktop there.
- Upstre
** Description changed:
- needed for libspa-0.2-bluetooth needed for bluetooth support with
- PipeWire
+ [Availability]
+ TODO: The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe.
+ TODO: The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work
on, it fails on s390x but we don't supp
12 matches
Mail list logo
