On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 21:23, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:38 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 01:28, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> So the plan for puredata-dev has been pushed off until Pure Data 0.43 is >>> released and packaged, so I think that the approach used in these two >>> packages is going to be necessary for the timebeing. >>> >>> Can anyone upload these two? They are needed as deps for the rest of the >>> packages that I have ITP'ed. >> >> Why did you put the DMUA field before starting your DM application? I >> will upload them, although with the field removed until you get your >> DM status approved. > > I actually have started my DM application before debconf10. The DebConf > people that I worked with said I should get someone who knows the stuff that > I package to sponsor my DM application. None of the debconf nyc localteam > do any multimedia stuff. So at this point, once I find someone willing to > sponsor me, I can revive my DM application email and complete the process. > > Sorry if I caused any trouble, I was just trying to make things go smoother.
It's not trouble, just standard practice to put the flag after the DM status is attained. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience advocate your DM application until I have further worked with you. Maybe after a few more package uploads ;). > >> And another question, why does puredata-import depends on puredata (<< >> 0.43)? I just uploaded pd-libdir for now. > > Thanks for uploading pd-libdir! puredata 0.43 has changed the way the > headers are installed, so pd libraries that rely on certain headers will > have to change once 0.43 hits the repos. I think its important to get this > stuff into Debian working with 0.42, and I'm willing to do the legwork of > packaging first for pd 0.42, then updating for 0.43. I understand the need for the build-depends, which is what I read from your description above (pd-libdir has the same restriction). However, puredata-import (the binary package) Depends on puredata << 0.43. Is that intended? If so, please explain why. Also, while we are on it, why the naming scheme change? Shouldn't it be pd-import? -- 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
