On 25/10/2012 15:03, Ron wrote:
> I'm a little bit wary of trying to push this through to Wheezy at this
> late stage now. Wavesurfer has a fairly low popcon (regardless of how
> essential it may be to those of us who do use it :) and there hasn't
> been a huge flood of "me too"s from people wanting this so far either,
> which makes me worry it won't get a whole lot of testing before release
> time in either case ...
I agree.
> Though I also do kind of wonder if the alternative dep in wavesurfer
> is really the right place for this anyhow. Shouldn't libsnack really
> be the thing offering alternatives, and this package then can just
> depend on "snack2" or so and let the snack maintainer decide what
> alternatives can provide that? What if there is a libsnack-pulse
> or something similar later on as well?
>
> It looks like both packages already provide libsnack2, but we don't
> look at the alternative provider because we have a versioned dep.
>
> One option might be to drop the version here, since snack 2.2 dates
> back to 2003'ish. But I guess better might be for snack itself to
> provide a new "snack2" virtual dep that we can depend on instead.
>
> What do you think? Should we punt the alternative selection to
> snack itself? Hacking it in here isn't difficult, but it doesn't
> really seem like the right place for it. Wavesurfer shouldn't
> have to care what backend is actually being used at all.
I also agree.
I am going to suggest this to the libsnack2 maintainer.
Bests,
Giulio.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
