On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 01:01, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote: > > 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.
Good, I see you fixed this. > >> 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'. I've added a description and removed an unnecesary note on debian/copyright. Please rephrase the description if it does not conform to pd-speak, and update the changelog. Then we can upload. -- 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
