Matthias Klose dixit: [ #686777 ] >so this bug discussion started in 2013, and stopped in 2016. Do you >really think that this will pick up again?
Given how the last opus update happened (as an NMU), no. But since multiple packages need this, maybe salvaging could apply. The questions raised wrt. symbols should be taken upstream, I guess. Since multiple packages need this, each of them shipping their own opus copy is directly against Policy… I agree that that’s not in time for bullseye, but perhaps this software is then just not suitable for a release? Alternatively, ignoring this issue would “work”, but it’s not a thing I’d want to keep perpetually. >> git clone https://evolvis.org/anonscm/git/alioth/jamulus.git >> to retrieve my last WIP state. The package was working last >> time I tried, but it needs updating to latest upstream, of >> course. > >I was just taking the upstream packaging >What's wrong with this approach? Taking the upstream packaging. Upstream is not a Debian Developer and has almost no idea how to package for Debian. Even looking at their copyright file alone should tell you it’s extremely incomplete. Upstream packaging also contains a binary DLL without sources in their distfile, which is grounds for an ftpmaster rejection. I take my DD duties, including the licence review, seriously. I’ve looked at at least the headers of each and every single file in the distfile. In general, I _never_ reuse upstream packaging, even if I sometimes look at what extra things they did e.g. for .desktop files or so. This has proven correct many times. >, also providing a -headless package for the server. Since the server also needs Qt and JACK for the inner operation, this will not save anything. I’m convinced it’s not worth it. I had looked at this for a bit. >> Otherwise I’ll jump in once the opus issue gets fixed, or >> perhaps upload to sid with an RC bug to prevent testing >> migration. > >that last option isn't suitable for "in time for bullseye". Indeed. Like I said, maybe the software is not suitable. Or you just want to ignore this. I did not have any pressing reason to get this into stable, but I was asked by someone else last week and you now, so maybe other people do, so I probably should do something. Given the low severity of the opus issue (same version as the one shipped in main, either of them unpatched), I agree we probably can ignore this for one release. If you wish I can also update my packaging and upload this. Should be quick enough… bye, //mirabilos -- <hecker> cool ein Ada Lovelace Google-Doodle. aber zum 197. Geburtstag? Hätten die nicht noch 3 Jahre warten können? <mirabilos> bis dahin gibts google nicht mehr <hecker> ja, könnte man meinen. wahrscheinlich ist der angekündigte welt- untergang aus dem maya-kalender die globale abschaltung von google ☺ und darum müssen die die doodles vorher noch raushauen
