On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:08:57PM +0100, Cassiel wrote: > 2009/3/11 Daniel James <dan...@64studio.com> > > Hi Raffaele, > > I can't go in deep about debian packages accept/reject workflow and > policy stuff but non-free repository should allow some compromise in > these direction... > > It wasn't about free versus non-free (for once), it was that Ardour > developers were forced to embedded their own forked versions of > libraries, because upstream authors had not applied patches that Ardour > needed to function properly. > > Some Debian developers decided this was unacceptable, as a matter of > policy - result: no Ardour in Lenny. I don't think that's a win for > Debian. > > Cheers! > Daniel > > So, sid/unstable version of Ardour will be there forever and ever and > never be released nor meet testing because of debian developer "laziness" > in patching... > ...can someone borrow me a flame-thrower tank?
It's not a matter of debian developer laziness ... the ardour in sid needs patches to _upstream_ libraries. If/when those upstream libraries accept the patches the ardour devs need, then those libraries can get into debian and ardour can use the debian packaged versions rather than it's own forked versions. As to any criticism's of Free, anyone who doesn't know should look up the history of agnula/demudi. Multimedia in debian (and by proxy, ubuntu) wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today with out his past and continuing efforts. -Eric Rz. (sorry if I missed this having been said by my jumping in in the middle of a thread) -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-multimedia-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
