Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

* 07-08-2007, Andrei Popescu: [] > Did you even try adding a directory? It might even work ;) > >> xmms2... Well, when we have a decent client, then can are an option. >> Now, isn't it. > > Same as with mpd :-/ Server is `(mu-)mplayer` (seek isn't working in ogg), client is `dd`, playlist is small

Re: GTK1 Apps (was: Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian)

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 23:36:40 +0100 Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > I don't have any power to remove their packages from Debian, but I > > urge every maintainer of a package depending on GTK+ 1.2 to either > > start the work on GTK2 porting it or consider it

GTK1 Apps (was: Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian)

Josselin Mouette wrote: > I don't have any power to remove their packages from Debian, but I > urge every maintainer of a package depending on GTK+ 1.2 to either > start the work on GTK2 porting it or consider its removal. And now is > more than the time to start this. Neil Williams wrote: > If an

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:18:32PM +, William Pitcock wrote: > > It seems that you don't understand why we call it an XMMS replacement: > > it's not at all about having all the same features, it's about the core > > functionality. If we consider audacious an XMMS replacement it means > > that w

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock a écrit : > Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > >> I think you need at least an Intel HDA card to reproduce that problem, >> as it's probably the driver that presents something weird to the >> lib. Might even need a MacBook with the same setup :| >> >> I'll see on another machine

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Luk Claes zomers.be> writes: > Well Debian has another focus than Fedora Core, I won't comment further > on the implications... I'm not qualified to comment on that either. However, I was simply demonstrating that other distributions found it possible to integrate within the time window. > It s

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

> > > I propose you STFU and go fix your bugs. > > > > I propose you stop classifying bugs > > Now, will you please go fix your bugs ? Gentlemen, I think that your discussion about who is faulty or not is going far from the topic of this list, which is the development of the Debian distribution.

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > > I think you need at least an Intel HDA card to reproduce that problem, > as it's probably the driver that presents something weird to the > lib. Might even need a MacBook with the same setup :| > > I'll see on another machine if the ALSA plugin behaves bett

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, we are indeed aware of your bug, however, after inquiring with the people > responsible for the ALSA plugin, the conclusion we presently have is that we > are > unable to reproduce it, so it will take some time before we can come up with a > patch

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > > Two bugs: > - random crashes while scrolling the playlist > - segfault in the ALSA output plugin > > That's in case you're interested in > fixing the pile of crap that is your ALSA output plugin (hey, XMMS' > one behaves pe

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 10:13:45AM +, William Pitcock wrote: > Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > > > > Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > > I wonder what kind of crack you are on. Your website shows the 1.3.0 > > release date as being 2 march 2007. Th

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=audacious;dist=unstable Yes, I have discussed these with Adam Cecile. Many of those bugs have been fixed in 1.4, and cannot be fixed in current 1.3 due to architectural shift from the old XMMS paradigm to a n

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 10:13 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > > If you think one month is a considerable amount of time, you have no > > idea of what integrating a distribution means. > > I find it funny that Fedora Core 5, 6, and 7, all included the latest versions > of Audacious at the tim

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > You should talk about this with the maintainer; this has nothing to do > with our processes. If that version was so buggy as not to be usable, > the maintainer should have prevented it fr

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I propose you STFU and go fix your bugs. > > I propose you stop classifying bugs which state "is not XMMS" as bugs in > Audacious, or generally talking about commandeering my project. Thanks! Two bugs: - random crashes while scrolling the playlist -

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 10:00 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > I propose you stop classifying bugs which state "is not XMMS" as bugs in > Audacious, or generally talking about commandeering my project. Thanks! "Crashes and locks up randomly" sounds much like "is XMMS" to me, so I don't think

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > > I propose you STFU and go fix your bugs. > > JB. > I propose you stop classifying bugs which state "is not XMMS" as bugs in Audacious, or generally talking about commandeering my project. Thanks! William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] w

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:58 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > Then it is supported by us upstream. Therefore, if it crashes or blows up in > your face, people should tell us about it, and not complain on a mailing list > or > talk about commandeering projects to make Audacious into some sort

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > It's not our fault that Debian packaged an old, buggy, and generally speaking, > broken version of Audacious with a bunch of backported patches that may or may > not be fully compatible. You should talk about this with the maintai

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

gmail.com> writes: > > Lenny has had 1.3 for over a month now. > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/audacious/news/20070706T223908Z.html > > FYI: The status of the audacious source package > in Debian's testing distribution has changed. > > Previous version: 1.2.2-4 > Current version: 1.

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui darkbolt.net> writes: > GTK+ 1.2 are unmantained upstream, yes. No it's not. GTK1 maintainance ceased in Feburary 2001. > I've read on this thread, on a critical for audacious "as xmms > replacement", I've pointed who audacious doesn't have many features > present

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As you don't seem to have understood at all, none of the xmms >> alternatives are up to par with xmms, with many of them having >> usability or stability problems. > > Please stop blaming the faults and defects of your packaging process on > upstream

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 8/12/07, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not our fault that Etch did not ship with 1.3. 1.3 had been out for a > considerable amount of time when Etch shipped. Please don't claim that the > most > recent versions of audacious (as shipped and maintained by us) crashes every > 2

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE debian.org> writes: > As you don't seem to have understood at all, none of the xmms > alternatives are up to par with xmms, with many of them having > usability or stability problems. Please stop blaming the faults and defects of your packaging process on upstream developers. Audac

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui darkbolt.net> writes: > Simply you can read this thread and can find a report of audacious (main > candidate for xmms replace) crashing on a max time of 2 minutes running. It's not our fault that Debian packaged an old, buggy, and generally speaking, broken version o

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 8/12/07, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le samedi 11 août 2007 à 06:57 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) a > écrit : > > You are saying to the mantainers who if they doesnt work > > on a GTK+ 1.2 -> 2.0 port their packages will go out of debian now? > > I don't have any power t

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le samedi 11 août 2007 à 06:57 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) a écrit : > You are saying to the mantainers who if they doesnt work > on a GTK+ 1.2 -> 2.0 port their packages will go out of debian now? I don't have any power to remove their packages from Debian, but I urge every maintainer o

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le samedi 11 août 2007 à 12:25 +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:00:18PM +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > > > > As you don't seem to have understood at all, let me repeat it: XMMS is > > unmaintained. > > Dear Josselin, > > why do you write this while it has been sa

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui darkbolt.net> writes: > .. > I doesn't have more for this, but a comment: > > I've read on this thread, on a critical for audacious "as xmms > replacement", I've pointed who audacious doesn't have many features > present on xmms. Hello everyone, I'm a regular Debia

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 10 août 2007 à 04:48 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) a > écrit : >> I've read the complete thread, and i understand who the main reason from >> the mantainers are these. But, in the other hand, have the reason

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:00:18PM +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > > As you don't seem to have understood at all, let me repeat it: XMMS is > unmaintained. Dear Josselin, why do you write this while it has been said the contrary and that visiting www.xmms.org strongly supports the fact that

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As you don't seem to have understood at all, let me repeat it: > > XMMS is unmaintained. GTK+ 1.2 is unmaintained. Anyone who wants > > to see xmms remain in Debian should take over maintainership for >

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote: > I really don't see the problem in keeping xmms around until there's > a viable alternative. There's no problem so long as there as someone who is actually willing to maintain it and be responsible for both it and GTK+ 1.2. Unless you are willing to step

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 07-Aug-07, 18:53 (CDT), "David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, we can you read on this thread, the point isn't to make an > remaked-xmms on audacious, its makes users switch to another player. I wish people would stop saying this. Nothing is going remove xmms from *yo

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As you don't seem to have understood at all, let me repeat it: XMMS is > unmaintained. GTK+ 1.2 is unmaintained. Anyone who wants to see xmms > remain in Debian should take over maintainership for both, including > upstream maintenance and all that it

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le vendredi 10 août 2007 à 04:48 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) a écrit : > I've read the complete thread, and i understand who the main reason from > the mantainers are these. But, in the other hand, have the reason of > gtk1.2 removal porposal. I understand this, but, i say who of the > gi

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've read the complete thread, and i understand who the main reason from the mantainers are these. But, in the other hand, have the reason of gtk1.2 removal porposal. I understand this, but, i say who of the given reasons are incorrect. Too, i say who

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 05:04 +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) wrote: > xmms have 11000+ popcon installations reported. The total reports of > popcon are 57000+. This is aprox 20% of users. Now, are talking for > removal an application for those users?... > > I've read the buglist of xmms, and i

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 09:28:05PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Stanislav Maslovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Random segfaults during playback, random segfaults while scrolling the > >> playlist; can't have it running for more than 2 minutes. > > > > If you are using the version from Etch

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 01:47:31AM +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Julien BLACHE wrote: > > Stanislav Maslovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> Random segfaults during playback, random segfaults while scrolling the > >>> playl

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michal Čihař wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:25:21 +0300 > Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:22:59AM +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) >> wrote: >> >>> xmms2... Well, when we have a decent client, the

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Julien BLACHE wrote: > Stanislav Maslovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Random segfaults during playback, random segfaults while scrolling the >>> playlist; can't have it running for more than 2 minutes. >> If you are using the version from Etch I

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Stanislav Maslovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Random segfaults during playback, random segfaults while scrolling the >> playlist; can't have it running for more than 2 minutes. > > If you are using the version from Etch I would recommend upgrading/backporting > to the version from unstable. It

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > "David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Personally i'm an xmms user, and now, with this, i have tested other > > options. Audacious isn't an option at all. Yes, we have the same > > I've recently tr

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

"David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Personally i'm an xmms user, and now, with this, i have tested other > options. Audacious isn't an option at all. Yes, we have the same I've recently tried to switch to Audacious, and man it's buggy. Way more buggy than xmms. Rand

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Hi On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 09:25:21 +0300 Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:22:59AM +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) wrote: > > > xmms2... Well, when we have a decent client, then can are an option. > > Now, isn't it. > > Same as with mpd :-/ Have you tried

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:22:59AM +0200, David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui) wrote: > Personally i'm an xmms user, and now, with this, i have tested other > options. Audacious isn't an option at all. Yes, we have the same > winamp-style, and can read winamp & xmms skins, too. But, it's newer and > doe

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I can comment out a point: xmms have 11000+ popcon installations reported. The total reports of popcon are 57000+. This is aprox 20% of users. Now, are talking for removal an application for those users?... I've read the buglist of xmms, and i think

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 01:40:05AM -0400, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote: >> On 03/07/07, Klaus Ethgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I heard this crap only when using alsa. >> which is a problem, since OSS is deprecated in favour

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Am 2007-07-12 05:32:37, schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane: > I say that, because while I really don't intend to make you angry, as > a casual user of xmms, I don't see the difference. As far as I'm > concerned, xmms's goal was to be a sound player. And your goal, in > your FAQ is to develop a "media playe

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Eduard Bloch gmx.de> writes: > I disagree. As said, I dislike a simple player touching every file for no > good reason, and I do not consider "codec detection" a such one. There > is simply no important information you would gather from that. Validity > of the file and the length are only interes

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock sacredspiral.co.uk> writes: > > Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > > > > I think what they don't want is > > [4] Replace XMMS by a metapackage that installs Audacious in place > > > Err to clarify, not doing [4] is exactly what we want. Sorry if anyone got confused.

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Steve Greenland moregruel.net> writes: > > On 14-Jul-07, 16:48 (CDT), William Pitcock sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote: > > My issue is that I find it patently offensive that people attack my work > > simply because they wish to regain XMMS in their distribution. Maybe > > I am wrong in thinking that

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > I think what they don't want is > [4] Replace XMMS by a metapackage that installs Audacious in place > This is exactly what we want, as that will cause problems for us. William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsub

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Don Armstrong debian.org> writes: > > We can certainly attempt to do so; I don't think anyone in this thread > is contemplanting knowingly causing audacious's upstream harm. > I agree, in fact, I don't think Debian would handle such a migration in the way that Gentoo handled it. I'm just bringi

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 14-Jul-07, 16:48 (CDT), William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My issue is that I find it patently offensive that people attack my work > simply because they wish to regain XMMS in their distribution. Maybe > I am wrong in thinking that way, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. I don't think you

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 15 juillet 2007 à 15:56 +0200, Eduard Bloch a écrit : > > This is where Gentoo initially failed to succeed in their migration. > > I am sorry because you have been burnt with Gentoo transition, but > bitching is easy. And what do you expect us to do? > > [1] Forget Audacious and keep

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 02:14:52PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > * William Pitcock [Sun, Jul 15 2007, 12:06:47AM]: > > Eduard Bloch gmx.de> writes: > > > I see this in strace output with default configuration. Switching the > > > setting between on-display and on-load makes it even worse, then it >

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

#include * William Pitcock [Sat, Jul 14 2007, 11:30:09PM]: > As long as we don't hear about 'regressions from XMMS' as a result of > a migration path provided by Debian, then you have fulfilled my request. We cannot really fulfill any such request because we are only distributors, not mind progr

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

#include * William Pitcock [Sun, Jul 15 2007, 12:06:47AM]: > Eduard Bloch gmx.de> writes: > > > > > I see this in strace output with default configuration. Switching the > > setting between on-display and on-load makes it even worse, then it > > opens every file THREE times. Sorry, wtf? > > >

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, William Pitcock wrote: > I don't think debian has PR, however I think debian can choose how > to handle a migration in a way where it's not harmful to audacious > as upstream from debian. We can certainly attempt to do so; I don't think anyone in this thread is contemplanting

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Don Armstrong debian.org> writes: > > There's little that can be done to educate or placate zealots; but > considering that everyone is talking about transitioning to audacious, > not advertising (heh; amusing that someone thinks we have PR) adacious > as an xmms clone. > I don't think debian h

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Eduard Bloch gmx.de> writes: > > I see this in strace output with default configuration. Switching the > setting between on-display and on-load makes it even worse, then it > opens every file THREE times. Sorry, wtf? > This is a result of codec detection, and has been improved upon in Audaciou

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, William Pitcock wrote: > I am complaining about developer time being wasted by xmms zealots > which will likely harass us on our tracker. There's little that can be done to educate or placate zealots; but considering that everyone is talking about transitioning to audacious, n

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Don Armstrong debian.org> writes: > Like it or not, bug reports are a part of software development that we > all have to deal with. Suggesting announcements or text for such a > transition may help, but at the end of the day distributions are going > to switch as projects mature or decay. Complai

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Lionel Elie Mamane mamane.lu> writes: > > Would a mention of the "different direction of audacious" in the > release notes of lenny, the next Debian release, fulfil your "PR > handling" request? Something like Simply not asserting that Audacious is a fullstop "XMMS clone" will fulfill my reques

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, William Pitcock wrote: > Because every time distros try to do an xmms->audacious migration on > us, it causes additional load on our development effort because > people file bug reports and demand that we behave exactly like XMMS. Like it or not, bug reports are a part of soft

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Joseph Neal speakeasy.net> writes: > > There are a number of plugins available from the rarewares repository[1] and > perhaps other third party repositories which provide the only convient way > I'm aware of to access a number of media formats (bonk, wavepack, lossless > audio, shorten, vario

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Josselin Mouette debian.org> writes: > > Whether you like it or not, audacious is a playlist-based audio player > with support for many audio formats and funny plugins. This description > sounds much like XMMS, which is why it can be considered a good > replacement. As a user, I don't care about

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Joseph Neal speakeasy.net> writes: > It's my impression that audicious is not scriptable so it can't be > as easily integrated into existing applications or controlled from emacs > or irssi. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ audtool current-song New Order - The Rest Of - Age of Consent [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Jon Dowland alcopop.org> writes: > Unless I've got my timeframes wrong, there were a few > successful attempts too. What's objectionable about people > trying to find security flaws in your software, apart from > their motivation for doing so? > There is nothing wrong with trying to find securi

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Steve Greenland moregruel.net> writes: > > Like it or not, your software fits very much into the role played > by XMMS, such that someone who likes XMMS is more likely to choose > Audacious than, say, Rythymbox. That's why it's being discussed as a > "replacement". If we remove XMMS from the dis

Re: Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 08 juillet 2007 à 23:02 -0500, Joseph Neal a écrit : > A substitute needs to be a simple library based player > that is scriptable and provides maximum exposure to the features of the > underlying libraries. If you find a piece of software that solves the eternal dilemma between featur

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le mercredi 11 juillet 2007 à 14:40 +, William Pitcock a écrit : > Architecturally, Audacious is much different than XMMS, it just sorta looks > like > XMMS, which I think sends the wrong message, but whatever. The fact is that we > do not consider ourselves to be an XMMS clone or an XMMS repl

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Jon Dowland wrote: If a user removes the package themselves, even if they don't realise it, via a dependency chain with GTK 1.x or something similar, I don't have a great deal of sympathy. Did you ever heard about the multi-user concept? Kind regards Andreas. -

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:23:35PM +, William Pitcock wrote: > Audacious' direction. Gentoo's (mis)handling of PR during > this transitional time has resulted and several > lame attempts to find security holes in Audacious with the > explicit purpose of trying to get XMMS back. Unless I've go

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:23:35PM +, William Pitcock wrote: > José Miguel Parrella Romero gmail.com> writes: >> The maintainers of the xmms package in Debian are proposing the >> removal of the aforementioned package. Please read on. >> * Other distributions have already discussed XMMS remo

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 11-Jul-07, 09:40 (CDT), William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are not an XMMS clone. Would you like us to remove the Winamp2 UI > to drive this point further? If this nonsense keeps happening, it's > exactly what we will be doing. Like it or not, your software fits very much into the

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:40:53PM +, William Pitcock wrote: > Andreas Tille rki.de> writes: > > I think xmms is to wide spread as that we just could wild guess how > > many users are affected and how they could cope with this. > > Somebody will just maintain their own repo with gtk1.2 and xm

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Andreas Tille rki.de> writes: > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > > Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that > > much, > > While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at > first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

José Miguel Parrella Romero gmail.com> writes: > > The maintainers of the xmms package in Debian are proposing the removal > of the aforementioned package. Please read on. > > 1. Rationale > > * Upstream has deprecated development and support for the current > version of XMMS. > * Several part

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:13:03PM -0500, David Moreno Garza wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS > > successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2 > > all usable now? > > What's exactly a XMMS successor? All

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS > successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2 > all usable now? What's exactly a XMMS successor? -- David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/ Use GPG. -- T

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Joseph Neal a écrit : > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:09:35 +0200 > "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Xmms-shn was last updated March 28th 2007. I personally have about >>> 40 hours of zappa boots in shn format that would only be playable >>> from mplayer and perhaps vlc if xmms w

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Perhaps not because of some dependencies (perhaps because > GTK 1.x will be removed) it might be removed by aptitude / > synaptics besides a lot of other stuff. If a user removes the package themselves, even if they don't realise it,

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:35:09 -0300 "Margarita Manterola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/9/07, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I have the time and inclination maybe I will port it to gtk2, but why > > should I spend that effort when it's a perfectly good working program. > > Su

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 7/9/07, Matthew Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If I have the time and inclination maybe I will port it to gtk2, but why should I spend that effort when it's a perfectly good working program. Sure it's not getting new features, but it gets along fine without them. Because, as it has been

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled: > GTK+ 1.2 (and GLib 1.2) were abandoned upstream over *six years* ago. > It's rather probable (nay, doubtless) that there are unidentified and > unfixed security problems with these libraries. > > Given that upstreams have had over five years to port th

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Joseph Neal a écrit : Well, my reasoning was, that we just try to wild guess about user capabilities. I have just learned that user behave very unexpected and exactly these users happen to be quite vocal how broken Debian is. I just would like to give them lesser chances to be correct when they

Re: Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

> > Well, my reasoning was, that we just try to wild guess about > > user capabilities. I have just learned that user behave very > > unexpected and exactly these users happen to be quite vocal > > how broken Debian is. I just would like to give them lesser > > chances to be correct when they cla

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Well, my reasoning was, that we just try to wild guess about > user capabilities. I have just learned that user behave very > unexpected and exactly these users happen to be quite vocal > how broken Debian is. I just would like to g

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Steve Greenland wrote: * can create desktop links and scripts Yes. * will notice the xmms has been removed Perhaps not because of some dependencies (perhaps because GTK 1.x will be removed) it might be removed by aptitude / synaptics besides a lot of other stuff. * wi

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On 08-Jul-07, 07:07 (CDT), Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > might have links form their desktops or other hooks that just call > /usr/bin/xmms. So this might affect a lot of users and especially > those users that have no idea how to cope with a missing xmms in their > PATH. Removing a

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Andreas Tille wrote: >> Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that >> much, > While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at > first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious) many user > might have links form their desktops or other hooks t

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

> > $ apt-cache rdepends libgtk1.2 | grep -c -v "^lib" > 316 > > Is a dead upstream sufficient cause to drop a package from Debian in > the absence of any RC bugs? Is a dependency on libgtk1.2 going to *be* > an RC bug for Lenny? It seems a very big step, IMHO. > the list includes programs l

dropped packages can be kept and even installed if so desired, eh? (was Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian)

* Neil Williams [Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:01:54 +0100]: > $ apt-cache rdepends libgtk1.2 | grep -c -v "^lib" > 316 > I'm not sure Debian needs to throw out over 300 applications before > Lenny. True, most of those are dead upstream - AFAICT GnuCash was the > last active upstream to make it to gtk2 - b

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:48:39 +0100 > Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > Such a minimal port is hardly worth doing. It is possible to migrate > from glib1 to glib2 in such a way (see #359299) but it is much har

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:48:39 +0100 Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * There are a number of other GTK 1.2 packages. > > GTK+ 1.2 (and GLib 1.2) were abandoned upstream over *six years* ago. > It's rather probable (nay, doubtless) th

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Andreas Tille wrote: > IMHO the only way to fix this is to provide a transitional > package that for instance depends from audacious (or other clones), > provides xmms and conflict with older xmms versions and install a > symlink to the replacement. this can and should only be done if there would

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Thomas Viehmann wrote: Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that much, While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious) many user might have links form their desktops o

  1   2   >