Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 05:12:24PM -0500, Enrique Robledo Arnuncio wrote:
>...
> Meanwhile, since fftw3 seems to keep failing to build in some archs
> due to test bench errors, I should probably rebuild freqtweak using
> fftw2...

Looking at the log of the failed ftw3 builds on arm and powerpc, they 
seem to be timeouts on the autobuilders in the test bench, not errors.

>Enrique.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Enrique Robledo Arnuncio]

[Please CC: me, I am not subscribed to these lists.]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:02:17AM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> Do we agree on removing packages in order to get JACK into testing ?
> As we have to discuss this with the affected maintainers, I'm CC'ing
> this to Enrique, who is the maintainer of freqtweak.

I agree to remove freqtweak from testing if the new version does not
replace it in time. The version in testing is too old now.

Meanwhile, since fftw3 seems to keep failing to build in some archs
due to test bench errors, I should probably rebuild freqtweak using
fftw2...
 
   Enrique.

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Junichi Uekawa]

> Do we have a plan how to handle this with future JACK packages ?
> 
> I think that it would be better to include the strict dependency rules
> in the packages instead of forcing them by the naming scheme of
> the JACK libraries. Several of the packages that rely on JACK only
> use a subset of its API, and therefore work across several releases.
> Others don't (e.g. those including the transport API), they have to depend
> on specific libjack versions.


I've got an impression that by the time we actually get this release in,
we are probably going to be looking at 0.90, which should be more stable, and 
then we'll probably be looking at 1.0, which should be two more 
ABI changes; which isn't too bad.



regards,
junichi

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[guenter geiger]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:

> Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers.
>
>
> > > I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter 
> > > mini-freeze,
> > > to get something released to testing.
>
>
> This is my (3rd?) update on the freeze status.
>
>
> >From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting for
>
>   ecasound2.2 -- latex2html problem (uploaded at urgency=HIGH, but python 
> seems to be broken)
>   removing this from testing will remove ecamegapedal, ecawave 
> also.
>   freqtweak -- waiting for fftw3 -- remove ?
>   alsa-lib -- only 5 days old. Removing this would be unreasonable 
> because alsa is required
>   for jack operation.
>
>
> At the earliest jack-audio-connection-kit can go into testing after 5 days
>
>   alsa-lib is ready
>   python is fixed and all buildds rebuild ecasound2.2, or
>   ecasound2.2, ecamegapedal, ecawave is removed from testing
>   freqtweak is removed from testing

Hi,

Do we agree on removing packages in order to get JACK into testing ?
As we have to discuss this with the affected maintainers, I'm CC'ing
this to Enrique, who is the maintainer of freqtweak.

Do we have a plan how to handle this with future JACK packages ?

I think that it would be better to include the strict dependency rules
in the packages instead of forcing them by the naming scheme of
the JACK libraries. Several of the packages that rely on JACK only
use a subset of its API, and therefore work across several releases.
Others don't (e.g. those including the transport API), they have to depend
on specific libjack versions.

This would at least reduce the amount of packages that depend on specific
JACK versions.

Regards,

Guenter

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 05:37:36AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting for
> 
>   ecasound2.2 -- latex2html problem (uploaded at urgency=HIGH, but python 
> seems to be broken)
>   removing this from testing will remove ecamegapedal, ecawave 
> also.
>   freqtweak -- waiting for fftw3 -- remove ?
>   alsa-lib -- only 5 days old. Removing this would be unreasonable 
> because alsa is required 
>   for jack operation.
> 
> 
> At the earliest jack-audio-connection-kit can go into testing after 5 days
> 
>   alsa-lib is ready
>   python is fixed and all buildds rebuild ecasound2.2, or 
>   ecasound2.2, ecamegapedal, ecawave is removed from testing 
>   freqtweak is removed from testing

What makes you think that ecasound2.2 is in testing? :)

alsa-lib has just been uploaded with urgency=medium to fix the hppa
build problem.

I was planning to remove freqtweak once everything else is ready,
certainly. Removing alsa-lib would be incredibly disruptive (look at
'apt-cache showpkg libasound2' sometime ...), so that's not an option.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers.


> > I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter 
> > mini-freeze,
> > to get something released to testing.


This is my (3rd?) update on the freeze status. 


From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting for

ecasound2.2 -- latex2html problem (uploaded at urgency=HIGH, but python 
seems to be broken)
removing this from testing will remove ecamegapedal, ecawave 
also.
freqtweak -- waiting for fftw3 -- remove ?
alsa-lib -- only 5 days old. Removing this would be unreasonable 
because alsa is required 
for jack operation.


At the earliest jack-audio-connection-kit can go into testing after 5 days

alsa-lib is ready
python is fixed and all buildds rebuild ecasound2.2, or 
ecasound2.2, ecamegapedal, ecawave is removed from testing 
freqtweak is removed from testing




regards,
junichi

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Wookey]

+++ Andreas Metzler [03-11-14 22:46 +0100]:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:51:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [...]
> > What criteria are you using to classify this as a grave bug, given
> > that the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels?
> [...]
> 
> I doubt the "vast majority". Who is running woody with 2.2? 

I was until 3 days ago..

Wookey
-- 
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK  Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:58:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 
> Blahblahblah. The bug doesn't make it unusable for everyone, therefore it's
> not grave. Stop arguing about severities and fix the bug instead. If you're
> not able to do that, do something else that's productive instead.

There are already several suggestions how to fix this problem in the BTS 
and the maintainer isn't MIA.

> Cheers,
> aj

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Junichi Uekawa]

> > On the contrary, it would help everyone interested in having an
> > up-to-date jack-audio-connection-kit in sarge.  If it becomes clear
> > later that full 2.6 support should be considered RC, the severity can
> > be raised again, assuming the bug still hasn't been fixed; but at this
> > point, the grave severity seems to be based on conjecture and
> > extrapolation, not on the real impact this bug has on users today.
> 
> Does the old version of jack currently in sarge work with 2.6? If not
> the bug should not influence testing-migration.

We're talking about wine, which is pulling jack because it doesn't work
with nptl


regards,
junichi

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:04:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:51:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >...
> > What criteria are you using to classify this as a grave bug, given that
> > the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels?  I don't
> > recall seeing anything that made 2.6 support a "must" for sarge, so I
> > don't see that an RC severity is justified here.
> "the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels"?

Blahblahblah. The bug doesn't make it unusable for everyone, therefore it's
not grave. Stop arguing about severities and fix the bug instead. If you're
not able to do that, do something else that's productive instead.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda


pgphNythDuJfI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Andreas Metzler]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 03:09:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:57:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
> > I consider it ridiculous to say a bug isn't RC if it will for sure still 
> > hit people using 2.6.0 - you could decrease the severity today and 
> > increase the severity again once 2.6.0 is out, but this wouldn't help 
> > anyone.

> On the contrary, it would help everyone interested in having an
> up-to-date jack-audio-connection-kit in sarge.  If it becomes clear
> later that full 2.6 support should be considered RC, the severity can
> be raised again, assuming the bug still hasn't been fixed; but at this
> point, the grave severity seems to be based on conjecture and
> extrapolation, not on the real impact this bug has on users today.

Does the old version of jack currently in sarge work with 2.6? If not
the bug should not influence testing-migration.
cu andreas

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Andreas Metzler]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:51:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> What criteria are you using to classify this as a grave bug, given
> that the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels?
[...]

I doubt the "vast majority". Who is running woody with 2.2? Lots of
people were running 2.4 on slink, although it required external
backports. (I am sure Adrian can back this with some webserver-logs
;-)
   cu andreas

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:57:28PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> > > > >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I 
> > > > > posted a workaround patch

> > > > Why would this be considered grave?  2.6.0 hasn't even been officially
> > > > released, has it?

> > > Don't be ridiculous.

> > > 2.6.0 will soon be released, and sarge already contains 2.6 kernel 
> > > images that are affected by this bug.

> > That justifies an important bug, but not a grave bug (at least not so
> > obviously that you could say "don't be ridiculous" to someone who
> > suggests that it isn't).

> If Debian 3.1 should support kernel 2.6 this bug is clearly RC, it's
> usually not acceptable that an application doesn't work with a supported
> kernel (exceptions are packages that are specific for some kernel 
> versions, but Wine is obviously not among them).

> I consider it ridiculous to say a bug isn't RC if it will for sure still 
> hit people using 2.6.0 - you could decrease the severity today and 
> increase the severity again once 2.6.0 is out, but this wouldn't help 
> anyone.

On the contrary, it would help everyone interested in having an
up-to-date jack-audio-connection-kit in sarge.  If it becomes clear
later that full 2.6 support should be considered RC, the severity can
be raised again, assuming the bug still hasn't been fixed; but at this
point, the grave severity seems to be based on conjecture and
extrapolation, not on the real impact this bug has on users today.

(Not to mention the fact that there seems to be a trivial workaround in
the bug report.)

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp6K3VZwhzYv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:32:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > Update:

> > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 

> > >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I 
> > > posted a workaround patch

> > Why would this be considered grave?  2.6.0 hasn't even been officially
> > released, has it?

> Don't be ridiculous.

> 2.6.0 will soon be released, and sarge already contains 2.6 kernel 
> images that are affected by this bug.

grave
  makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes data 
  loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of 
  users who use the package. 

important
  a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without 
  rendering it completely unusable to everyone. 



What criteria are you using to classify this as a grave bug, given that
the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels?  I don't
recall seeing anything that made 2.6 support a "must" for sarge, so I
don't see that an RC severity is justified here.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpoqsL3Go3ym.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:51:30PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> What criteria are you using to classify this as a grave bug, given that
> the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels?  I don't
> recall seeing anything that made 2.6 support a "must" for sarge, so I
> don't see that an RC severity is justified here.

"the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 kernels"?

Considering the current state of unstable, I don't think Debian 3.1 will 
be released before the second half of 2004.

Considering the current speed of Debian development, Debian 3.2 will be 
released in 2006 or 2007.

Even today, the 2.4.18 kernel on the Debian 3.0 boot floppies is too old 
to even boot on many modern systems (e.g. with some Promise IDE 
controllers).

I don't think "the vast majority of sarge users will be running 2.4 
kernels" in 2006.

> Steve Langasek

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[guenter geiger]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:02:15AM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> > > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for
>
> > > >  * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and 
> > > > hppa
>
> > For my part, I would prefer that jack gets pushed in and gem stays
> > uninstallable for some days, than having jack to wait another 10
> > days. ... So feel free to remove gem from testing, I will try to
> > figure out whats happening on ppc and hppa and then it can migrate into
> > testing again.
>
> > I think the same is true for the other packages. It seems that the testing
> > mechanism really gets in the way to be productive with packages depending
> > or related to jack.
>
> > Is there a way we can force jack in and solve this problem ?
>
> If gem were all that stood between jack-audio-connection-kit and
> testing, it's easy to remove gem from testing, yes.  There are at least
> three other packages that would also have to be removed at this point,
> however.  If wine, freqtweak, and fluidsynth are all ready to go, and
> gem is still not ready, I don't see why we couldn't remove it from
> testing (with your permission :) to get the rest in.

I'm actually giving the permission for all of my packages that depend on
JACK ..
Given that they can reenter into testing as soon as the bugs are
fixed, I think this is a sensible thing to do in order solve
the deadlock that is produced by the current situation.

Guenter

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:47:08PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:32:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I 
> > > > posted a workaround patch
> > > 
> > > Why would this be considered grave?  2.6.0 hasn't even been officially
> > > released, has it?
> > 
> > Don't be ridiculous.
> > 
> > 2.6.0 will soon be released, and sarge already contains 2.6 kernel 
> > images that are affected by this bug.
> 
> That justifies an important bug, but not a grave bug (at least not so
> obviously that you could say "don't be ridiculous" to someone who
> suggests that it isn't).

If Debian 3.1 should support kernel 2.6 this bug is clearly RC, it's
usually not acceptable that an application doesn't work with a supported
kernel (exceptions are packages that are specific for some kernel 
versions, but Wine is obviously not among them).

I consider it ridiculous to say a bug isn't RC if it will for sure still 
hit people using 2.6.0 - you could decrease the severity today and 
increase the severity again once 2.6.0 is out, but this wouldn't help 
anyone.

> Cheers,
> Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:32:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I 
> > > posted a workaround patch
> > 
> > Why would this be considered grave?  2.6.0 hasn't even been officially
> > released, has it?
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.
> 
> 2.6.0 will soon be released, and sarge already contains 2.6 kernel 
> images that are affected by this bug.

That justifies an important bug, but not a grave bug (at least not so
obviously that you could say "don't be ridiculous" to someone who
suggests that it isn't).

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Update:
> 
> > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 
> 
> >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I 
> > posted a workaround patch
> 
> Why would this be considered grave?  2.6.0 hasn't even been officially
> released, has it?

Don't be ridiculous.

2.6.0 will soon be released, and sarge already contains 2.6 kernel 
images that are affected by this bug.

> Steve Langasek

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:02:15AM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for

> > >  * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and 
> > > hppa

> For my part, I would prefer that jack gets pushed in and gem stays
> uninstallable for some days, than having jack to wait another 10
> days. ... So feel free to remove gem from testing, I will try to
> figure out whats happening on ppc and hppa and then it can migrate into
> testing again.

> I think the same is true for the other packages. It seems that the testing
> mechanism really gets in the way to be productive with packages depending
> or related to jack.

> Is there a way we can force jack in and solve this problem ?

If gem were all that stood between jack-audio-connection-kit and
testing, it's easy to remove gem from testing, yes.  There are at least
three other packages that would also have to be removed at this point,
however.  If wine, freqtweak, and fluidsynth are all ready to go, and
gem is still not ready, I don't see why we couldn't remove it from
testing (with your permission :) to get the rest in.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

> > >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I posted 
> > > a workaround patch
> > >
> > > and it will be ready for install.
> >
> > You missed:
> >
> > * freqtweak
> > that waits for fftw3
> >   that has an ICE on powerpc
> >
> > * fluidsynth
> > that waits for glibc


pgpIbAdFTfX5N.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Update:

> From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 

>  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I 
> posted a workaround patch

Why would this be considered grave?  2.6.0 hasn't even been officially
released, has it?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpfn30IO4irB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 04:14:34PM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> pthread.h includes time.h
> linux/videodev2.h includes linux/time.h

Do not use anything in /usr/include/linux from userspace directly;
they're for internal use by glibc. You should make your own copy of the
relevant headers instead where necessary.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[guenter geiger]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > For my part, I would prefer that jack gets pushed in and gem stays
> > uninstallable for some days, than having jack to wait another 10
> > days. ... So feel free to remove gem from testing, I will try to
> > figure out whats happening on ppc and hppa and then it can migrate into
> > testing again.
>
> See bug 220232.

pthread.h includes time.h
linux/videodev2.h includes linux/time.h

this means either videodev2.h is broken, or you can not use videodevices
together with pthreads.

I am just trying to state the obvious: libc-dev is broken, not the
packages that use it.

Of course bugs can be fixed, but the JACK dependancy structure is such
a fragile construct that things like this delay its moving into testing
for at least half a month. I fear that during these 15
days new issues will pop up, which leads to the conclusion that
with the current release system Debian will release with a terribly
outdated JACK system.

Is there something we can do to prevent that ?

Guenter

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Matt Kraai]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:02:15AM +0100, guenter geiger wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > Update:
> > >
> > >
> > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for
> > >
> > >  * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and 
> > > hppa
> 
> For my part, I would prefer that jack gets pushed in and gem stays
> uninstallable for some days, than having jack to wait another 10
> days. ... So feel free to remove gem from testing, I will try to
> figure out whats happening on ppc and hppa and then it can migrate into
> testing again.

See bug 220232.

-- 
Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[guenter geiger]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Update:
> >
> >
> > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for
> >
> >  * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and hppa

For my part, I would prefer that jack gets pushed in and gem stays
uninstallable for some days, than having jack to wait another 10
days. ... So feel free to remove gem from testing, I will try to
figure out whats happening on ppc and hppa and then it can migrate into
testing again.

I think the same is true for the other packages. It seems that the testing
mechanism really gets in the way to be productive with packages depending
or related to jack.

Is there a way we can force jack in and solve this problem ?

Guenter


> >  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I posted a 
> > workaround patch
> >
> > and it will be ready for install.
>
> You missed:
>
> * freqtweak
> that waits for fftw3
>   that has an ICE on powerpc
>
> * fluidsynth
> that waits for glibc
>
>
> > regards,
> > junichi
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
> --
>
>"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
> of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
>"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
>Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:11:14AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Update:
> 
> 
> From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 
> 
>  * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and hppa
>  * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I posted a 
> workaround patch
> 
> and it will be ready for install.

You missed:

* freqtweak
that waits for fftw3
  that has an ICE on powerpc

* fluidsynth
that waits for glibc


> regards,
>   junichi

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Junichi Uekawa]

Update:


From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 

 * gem -- which seems to have experienced build failure for powerpc and hppa
 * wine -- which has a grave bug that it doesn't work on 2.6.0, I posted a 
workaround patch

and it will be ready for install.


regards,
junichi

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:29:43AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 
> > > 
> > >   puredata: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old
> > > 
> > > 
> > > and it will be ready for install.
> > 
> > 
> > You missed at least Wine and #218476.
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> Interesting that the tools failed to show this as a problem.

update_output shows the first architecture with problems, and Wine isn't 
available on Alpha...

> regards,
>   junichi

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Junichi Uekawa]

> > From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 
> > 
> >   puredata: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old
> > 
> > 
> > and it will be ready for install.
> 
> 
> You missed at least Wine and #218476.

Yes, indeed.
Interesting that the tools failed to show this as a problem.




regards,
junichi

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 06:44:11AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers.
> 
> 
> > I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter 
> > mini-freeze,
> > to get something released to testing.
> 
> 
> 
> From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 
> 
>   puredata: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old
> 
> 
> and it will be ready for install.


You missed at least Wine and #218476.


> regards,
>   junichi

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers.


> I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter 
> mini-freeze,
> to get something released to testing.



From the look of it, jack-audio-connection-kit is waiting only for 

  puredata: Too young, only 7 of 10 days old


and it will be ready for install.



regards,
junichi

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:25:23PM +0200, guenter geiger wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers.

> > I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter
> > mini-freeze, to get something released to testing.

> > python2.3, which was one of the largest stumbling blocks has now
> > entered testing.

> What does a mini freeze mean for us maintainers of jack related packages ?
> Uploads of bug fixes only, no new "features" ?

The "mini" would refer to the breadth of the freeze (in number of
packages covered), not its depth, so ideally you would avoid any uploads
that could potentially delay the progression of all the packages into
testing.  That means that if there are 9 days left, and your package has
a wait time of 10 days and currently has no outstanding RC bugs, you
would not want to do *any* uploads, bug fixes or not.  Indeed, if you
don't have any RC bugs in your packages right now, the safest strategy
is to not upload at all until they make it into testing, to avoid
angering your fellow maintainers. ;)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpCXwsvxTNX6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze

[guenter geiger]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Hi, fellow debian audio developers, and release managers.
>
>
> I think jack-audio-connection-kit and related packages should enter
> mini-freeze, to get something released to testing.
>
> python2.3, which was one of the largest stumbling blocks has now
> entered testing.

What does a mini freeze mean for us maintainers of jack related packages ?
Uploads of bug fixes only, no new "features" ?

Guenter