On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 13:02, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoel...@iem.at> wrote: >> >> I see that some bugs (buils system, mostly) will require uploading all >> (or most) of the pd externals. Can we do something to avoid that? >> > hmm, i'm not sure if i understand what you mean: > i thought bugs can only be fixed by providing fixed versions. > if a package is FTBFS because of broken bulid system, then the only solution > i > see is to fix the build system and re-upload the package. > > the only alternative i see, would be to centralize the build system, e.g. by > providing a common makefile snippet that would be used instead of upstream's > build system. > > i started centralizing once with a "pd-pkg-tools" library, but it ended up as > a > cdbs snippet (while almost all of the packages in question right now use > shortform dh). > also the cdbs snippet does not replace upstream build system, but rather fixes > debian specifics (e.g. make shlibdeps work nicely with the non-standard > extension) > > i'm not opposed at all to using a central (separately maintained) makefile, > but > hans has spent a lot of time crafting the current (upstream) makefile to make > it > work with a wide range of systems. > the current template for the (upstream) Makefile already fixes the > kFreeBSD/hurd > problems, but the packages in question have not been updated (upstream) to use > the new template, so i decided to fix the problem using packaging > possibilities.
This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do others think? -- 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
