Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "odr-audioenc": * Package name: odr-audioenc Version : 3.2.0-1 Upstream Author : Matthias P. Braendli * URL : https://www.opendigitalradio.org/mmbtools * License : GPL-2+ with Autoconf-data exception, LGPL-2.1+, Fraunhofer-FDK-AAC-for-Android, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0+, GPL-3+ with Autoconf-2.0~Archive exception, apple-free, GPL-2.0+, Expat * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/ralex/odr-audioenc Section : hamradio The source builds the following binary packages: odr-audioenc - DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR- mmbTools To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-audioenc/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/odr-audioenc/odr-audioenc_3.2.0-1.dsc Changes for the initial release: odr-audioenc (3.2.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Initial release. Closes: #1008124 Regards, -- Robin ALEXANDER
Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Please add a watch file that scans https://github.com/Opendigitalradio/ODR-AudioEnc/tags. When you have done that please untag moreinfo.
Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Hi Bastian, I added file debian/watch, rebuilt + uploaded the package and removed the moreinfo tag on bug 1008882. Thank you. -- Robin ALEXANDER Le mercredi 18 mai 2022 à 12:02 +0200, Bastian Germann a écrit : > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Please add a watch file that scans > https://github.com/Opendigitalradio/ODR-AudioEnc/tags. > When you have done that please untag moreinfo. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Hi, My package odr-audioenc was rejected after it reached the NEW queue because one of the library it depends on does not belong to "main" but to "non-free". I therefore need to change the section in file debian/control from "hamradio" to "non-free/hamradio" and submit the package again. Questions: - Do I need to change the package release from 1 to 2 because of this debian/control file change or can I keep the same package release, given that the package never made it to unstable - Can I take the opportunity of this change to include the latest upstream version? - When I initially created the repository in salsa.debian.org, I was not very familiar with git-buildpackage and I believe that branches and tags are not compliant (you can compare https://salsa.debian.org/ralex/odr-audioenc with https://github.com/opendigitalradio/debian-audioenc). If the version on github is indeed compliant with the debian standards, can I delete the repository on salsa and re-create it again before pushing the package? Thank you very much in advance for your support. -- Robin ALEXANDER OpenPGP_0xB44D368855690D0F.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 10:26 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote: > My package odr-audioenc was rejected after it reached the NEW queue > because one of the library it depends on does not belong to "main" but > to "non-free". I therefore need to change the section in file > debian/control from "hamradio" to "non-free/hamradio" and submit the > package again. If the package itself is otherwise free, you want contrib not non-free. The library will go to non-free of course though. > - Do I need to change the package release from 1 to 2 because of this > debian/control file change or can I keep the same package release, given > that the package never made it to unstable I'm not sure, but I think it would be best to change it, as documentation of the changes done based on ftp-master feedback. > - Can I take the opportunity of this change to include the latest > upstream version? Yes. > can I delete the repository on salsa and re-create it again before > pushing the package? Yes, the git repo isn't very relevant here. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Thank you very much Paul. I will apply all your esuggestions with one exception though: the section will be non-free/hamradio in the end, for I made a mistake when I wrote the initial email (my apologies). I should have written instead that the upstream odr-audioenc *INCLUDES MODIFIED SOURCES* of fdk-aac (Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android). Since the original version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android (I believe it is libfdk-aac-dev) is non-free, I guess that the modified sources also belong to non-free and thus odr-audioenc becomes non-free as well. On 20.10.22 10:09, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 10:26 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote: My package odr-audioenc was rejected after it reached the NEW queue because one of the library it depends on does not belong to "main" but to "non-free". I therefore need to change the section in file debian/control from "hamradio" to "non-free/hamradio" and submit the package again. If the package itself is otherwise free, you want contrib not non-free. The library will go to non-free of course though. - Do I need to change the package release from 1 to 2 because of this debian/control file change or can I keep the same package release, given that the package never made it to unstable I'm not sure, but I think it would be best to change it, as documentation of the changes done based on ftp-master feedback. - Can I take the opportunity of this change to include the latest upstream version? Yes. can I delete the repository on salsa and re-create it again before pushing the package? Yes, the git repo isn't very relevant here. -- Robin ALEXANDER
Re: Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 14:42 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote: > I should have written instead that the upstream odr-audioenc *INCLUDES > MODIFIED SOURCES* of fdk-aac (Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for > Android). Since the original version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec > Library for Android (I believe it is libfdk-aac-dev) is non-free, I > guess that the modified sources also belong to non-free and thus > odr-audioenc becomes non-free as well. I note that there is a request to move fdk-aac to main: https://bugs.debian.org/981285 PS: please try to get your fdk-aac changes upstream if you didn't yet. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
Hi Paul, I need to talk with the person in charge of the upstream odr-audioenc to see whether he could push his changes to the original project. In the meantime, I pushed odr-audioenc to mentors (https://mentors.debian.net/package/odr-audioenc/) and I have 2 questions regarding the ouptut of lintian: 1. Why didn't the "source-is-missing" error show on my environment (prior to push the package with dput)? Is there a specific lintian setup that I missed? FYI, my packaging environment runs on bullseye (I tried sid yesterday, but somehow there was a problem with one missing package that was preventing apt upgrade and install) 2. The "source-is-missing" error is actually not a missing file but a file (libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html) with too-long lines. Is there any action I must take to make lintian happy or can the package be accepted "as-is" ? Have a nice week-end On 21.10.22 05:05, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, 2022-10-20 at 14:42 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote: I should have written instead that the upstream odr-audioenc *INCLUDES MODIFIED SOURCES* of fdk-aac (Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android). Since the original version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android (I believe it is libfdk-aac-dev) is non-free, I guess that the modified sources also belong to non-free and thus odr-audioenc becomes non-free as well. I note that there is a request to move fdk-aac to main: https://bugs.debian.org/981285 PS: please try to get your fdk-aac changes upstream if you didn't yet. -- Robin ALEXANDER OpenPGP_0xB44D368855690D0F.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#1008882: RFS: odr-audioenc/3.2.0-1 [ITP] -- DAB and DAB+ encoder that integrates into the ODR-mmbTools
On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 17:29 +0200, Robin Alexander wrote: > 1. Why didn't the "source-is-missing" error show on my environment > (prior to push the package with dput)? Is there a specific lintian setup > that I missed? FYI, my packaging environment runs on bullseye (I tried > sid yesterday, but somehow there was a problem with one missing package > that was preventing apt upgrade and install) The mentors server runs lintian from bullseye-backports not bullseye, that is likely the reason that you are getting different results. In general package building and testing is done in sid environments, so you might want to use sbuild/pbuilder to at least get a sid chroot for building and testing and or a sid virtual machine for complex testing. The reason for the apt issues you encountered is that there is a Perl transition in progress. Please subscribe to debian-devel-announce. https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Y07wZyTNjNTxIsYI@estella.local.invalid > 2. The "source-is-missing" error is actually not a missing file but a > file (libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html) with too-long lines. Is there any > action I must take to make lintian happy or can the package be accepted > "as-is" ? libtoolame-dab sounds like an embedded code copy that should be packaged separately. I note that some parts of it are already in Debian in twolame. Other parts aren't though. The naming of the two is very similar too. So it seems to clearly be either a local fork, an older version of libtwolame or an embedded code copy of a fork of libtwolame. It would be good if you could clarify the situation with upstream and try to get them to remove the copy or merge the fork further upstream. Please note that forks and code copies should be registered with the Debian security team so that they fix security bugs in both copies: https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCopies If I look at the twolame source package then I see that psycho.html is present there too, but it is automatically generated from a text file. They clearly are not the same file, asciidoc builds the twolame HTML. When I convert the two HTML files to plain text using `w3m -dump` and then compare them with wdiff or meld (accounting for bugs in w3m, the different name and different quote types), the twolame version is definitely the newer documentation since there are sentence and word additions. I notice that libtoolame-dab also contains a 'text'dir, but the psy.text file in that directory doesn't contain any of the doc text. wdiff <(cp -f ./odr-audioenc-3.3.1/libtoolame-dab/html/psycho.html . ; sed -i '/style/,/STYLE/d' psycho.html ; w3m -dump psycho.html) <(w3m -dump ./twolame-0.4.0/doc/html/psycho.html | sed "s/’/'/g;s/TwoLAME/tooLAME/g") I'm not sure what to think of this, but two scenarios I can think of: The libtoolame-dab text directory used to have a text file that was the source of the HTML file and the text got dropped. This may have been an LGPL violation when it was done if the HTML was built from the text. The libtoolame documentation (inherited by libtoolame-dab) was always maintained in plain HTML and then later when tooLAME got renamed to TwoLAME, they converted it to asciidoc format for easier maintenance. Given the way the style tag contents are formatted and some of the mistakes in the libtoolame-dab HTML, probably it was the second one. Please add an override explaining that it is manually maintained. libtoolame-dab definitely needs to be split out of odr-audioenc, rebased on the latest TwoLAME and merged into it too though. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
