Your message dated Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:26:30 +0930
with message-id <20120607225630.gu18...@audi.shelbyville.oz>
and subject line roaraudio dependency removed from ices2
has caused the Debian Bug report #676541,
regarding ices2: Please re-enable RoarAudio support (im_roar)
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
676541: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676541
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ices2
Version: 2.0.1-12
Severity: wishlist
flum,
The ices2 package used to ship RoarAudio support.
This was removed in 2.0.1-12.
ChangeLog tells us:
* Stop build-depending on libroar-dev or suggesting roaraudio-server.
Requested by Ron Lee.
It seems there was no public discusion on this nor does the ChangeLog tell
why this was done.
I request re-enabling RoarAudio support. As far as I know there was no
problem with it.
This ticket should be closed before the freeze (independed on result)
to ensure smallest possible effect to users.
Thank you for your help and work.
--
Philipp.
(Rah of PH2)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Philipp,
I'm a little surprised that you claim there was no prior discussion
or that you don't know why this was done, since the need for this
was discussed with you in person, as the only logical conclusion to
you digging your heels in and insisting that obsolete things were
Absolutely Essential to the functionality of roar, and that you and
the-me would rather see roar removed before dropping things like the
abandoned celt codec, or DECnet ...
So it really shouldn't be any surprise that decoupling it from the
things that we do want to keep was a necessary step in doing the
unwanted busy-work of obliging you there.
But then maybe I shouldn't be surprised, because in:
http://bugs.debian.org/674649
You claim this all came as a complete and sudden shock to you,
while in August 2011, you claimed to be completely in the loop and
aware of everything that is going on, and in touch with me about it:
http://lists.keep-cool.org/pipermail/roaraudio/2011-August/000755.html
Upstream celt maintainers tried to impress upon you the need for not
shipping an obsolete version of it in Debian for another whole release
cycle, but their words fell on deaf ears also.
I've lost count of the number of people who have patiently tried to
explain this to you:
http://lists.keep-cool.org/pipermail/roaraudio/2011-December/000842.html
http://bugs.debian.org/673365
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cmus/+bug/923027
http://bugs.debian.org/608807
http://bugs.debian.org/616652
And yet as recently as a week ago, the debian installer was still pulling
in DECnet, through a totally spurious dependency on roar that nobody aside
from you seemed to actually want.
Two days ago, the upstream author of ices2 told you himself that while
he was quite interested in collecting any patches that the distros may
be carrying for it, he was quite reluctant to make another release of
it just to include your roar patches, since he had grave doubts that
anyone at all actually uses roar.
The truth of his words would seem to be fairly easy to confirm just by
browsing the archives of your mailing list:
http://lists.keep-cool.org/pipermail/roaraudio/
Where the astute reader will find plenty of messages from automated
services that you've subscribed to, with the occasional spattering of
bug reports about other software that has been broken by an unwanted
and unused dependency on roar, but not a single actual user of roar
itself anywhere to be seen.
It would seem that you've grudgingly and snarkily finally removed the
celt dependency now. For which I do very much thank you, whatever
your motivation for finally doing that was. Is it really too much
to ask that you see the same light about DECnet now?
At present I think it is too much to ask that we reintroduce a dep
on roar and all its baggage to popular packages that people actually
do use. Especially given the work you put us all through on the
assumption it would need to be removed from the distro entirely.
As much as I sympathise with you and the enthusiasm that you have
for your pet package, I think you need to find a way to decouple
this better, so that people who have never heard of it, and who have
no interest in it, don't pay the price of it being pulled in by apps
that they do want, which don't need it.
I hope one day you'll see this from the perspective of people who
don't use roar or DECnet, and not be grumpy at them or dismissive
of them, for that.
Anyhow, Jonas suggested I should close this if I could do it without
being rude, a request which anyone who knows me and the full details
of this situation should appreciate I've made an extremely valiant
attempt to honour here.
Since you also requested:
> This ticket should be closed before the freeze (independed on result)
> to ensure smallest possible effect to users.
I hope this explanation will help you agree that the intention of this
change was indeed to have the smallest possible effect to users of
the Wheezy release.
I genuinely hope this situation will be considerably saner by the time
we need to consider these questions again for the next release freeze.
Ron
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
