On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
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 ;).
Perfect, I have about 10 that are ready to upload! :-)
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.
Depends: puredata (< 0.43) is a mistake, I think, now that I look at
it. I'll change it and push the changes once I get the chance. But
feel free to make the change if you beat me to it.
Also, while we are on it, why the naming scheme change? Shouldn't it
be pd-import?
So there are multiple flavors of 'pd' but only one is currently
packaged (puredata). I am in the process of packaging the other major
flavor, Pd-extended as pdextended and that package will also provide
'pd'. Pd-extended/pdextended has "import" built-in, so it doesn't
need the "import" from the package. Therefore puredata-import is
targeted to only 'puredata' not anything that that provides 'pd'.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
