On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 12:15:21 -0400 Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org> wrote: > On 15 July 2016 at 08:56, Willem Mulder <14mrh4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > Thanks! :) > > > I based the patch on the package's git repo. I'd also like some feedback > > on it, since this is the first time I actually did something like this. > > The patch looks good, but there are some questions that need to be > resolved first: > > 1. Is the equalizer sink useful without qpaeq? > 2. Do users actually want the module, or the equalizer? > > As I understand it, the answer to 1 is: not at the moment, qpaeq is > the only available client; this makes the answer to 2 "no". Therefore, > I think the new package should be called qpaeq, and describe the > equalizer application.
My view of this is that users will be looking for 'an' equalizer, not for qpaeq per se. Looking at other distributions, I see the package is called 'pulseaudio-equalizer' (Fedora, Arch Linux, openSUSE). Perhaps we could go with that name, if only for the sake of uniformity? > Other than that, it looks good. The only unfortunate thing is that it > won't work by default as the dbus module is not loaded in the default > configuration. But fixing this would mean patching upstream code, > which is more work (and I don't think it should block actually > shipping the app). qpaeq itself says to enable the module if it is not, so I think it's safe to ignore this. > Did you test that the (python) dependencies you added are enough to > run the app? Ie, install on a clean system/chroot and that it starts? I have not tested it through a chroot, although I have tested it on a live environment. I've added dependencies on the Debian packages providing the explicitly imported Python packages, so it should be safe (if it's not, that's a bug in the packages concerned). > -- > > Saludos, > Felipe Sateler Kind regards, Willem Mulder