Bug#658084: libav-extra: Really necessary?
Here is what I propose in order to provide the lib*extra* packages from the libav source package. [1] It essentially has libav building the extra packages, thus no longer having to rely on a seperate source package. This change ensures the regular and the extra packages are built for all 'flavors' to be built depending on the architecture. As I said before, as far as building the GPLv3 enabled libraries, there is no reason to do that with a seperate source package. Building them separately would not change the fact that the packages are ultimately distributed through Debian main. The source package will remain LGPLv2.1+. The binaries will be GPLv2+ for the regular packages, and GPLv3+ for the extra packages. Though the build time is increased for libav, ultimately, this change would be better as the buildd network would not have to cope with building from two source packages (i.e. setting up and tearing down for libav and libav-extra for each architecture). Also, in my opinion, it is easier and less error prone to maintain a single libav package rather than two of them. 1. http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/libav.git;a=commitdiff;h=3037cab27717de75a73c77a553ab6dfad04a57da;hp=d78d2e6d0d0f43a6203ee6b78a8c0fefcab7838a -- ~ Andres ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
debian-multimedia.org considered harmful - redux
[ moving discussion to pkg-multimedia-maintainers ]
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> A recurring problem we have in pkg-multimedia is that
> debian-multimedia.org provides packages that replace both applications
> and libraries that we already ship with Debian.
Thanks for this summary, Reinhard. I was aware of most of it, although
probably many others on -devel were not.
> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
> an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5'); he has repeatedly shown that is
> not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also
> does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do
> not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing
> SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.).
I'm concerned about the above, as well as by the fund-raising on
debian-multimedia.o which have no disclaimer of non affiliation with
Debian.
I'd like to know if, in the opinion of the Debian Multimedia Team as a
whole, debian-multimedia.org is currently more harmful than useful to
the Debian Project and its users.
We're in no business of having to comment on an all unofficial package
repositories out there. But for those that (1) carry the "Debian" name
and/or (2) are run by Debian Developer we are in a position to comment.
In particular: strictly speaking (1) is a violation of the Debian
trademark policy unless we explicitly authorize it. Regarding (2), we
should expect from all Debian Developer not to get intentionally in the
way of work done within the Debian Project by the means of work done
outside of it.
If all past discussions with the debian-multimedia maintainers have
failed, and if the team thinks there is still a problem, then we should
use the above arguments to reopen discussions.
Ideally, we should try to come to technical agreements that allows the
two repositories to coexist with minimum hassle for both official Debian
packaging initiatives (i.e. your work) and the users. If that will fail
again, everyone will then be free to go its own path, but at that point
not using the "Debian" name on both sides.
Note that I explicitly ask for a team position on this matter. I'm well
aware of Reinhard position, also thanks to his mail, but I'd like to
understand if his is the uniform view on the team, or if there are other
positions within the team.
Cheers.
PS I'm not subscribed to pkg-multimedia-maintainers, please Cc:-me on
follow-ups. M-F-T set accordingly.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664541: override: vainfo:utils/optional
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal The override file needs to be updated for vainfo. vainfo_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb: package says section is utils, override says libs. vainfo is a utility program, not a library. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
opencore-amr_0.1.3-2_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.debian.tar.gz to main/o/opencore-amr/opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.debian.tar.gz opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.dsc to main/o/opencore-amr/opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.dsc Changes: opencore-amr (0.1.3-2) unstable; urgency=low . * Pass --disable-silent-rules to show compiler flags during build. Override entries for your package: libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb - extra debug libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb - optional libs libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb - extra debug libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb - optional libs opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.dsc - source libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
libva override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): vainfo_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb: package says section is utils, override says libs. Please note that a list of new sections were recently added to the archive: cli-mono, database, debug, fonts, gnu-r, gnustep, haskell, httpd, java, kernel, lisp, localization, ocaml, php, ruby, vcs, video, xfce, zope. At this time a script was used to reclassify packages into these sections. If this is the case, please only reply to this email if the new section is inappropriate, otherwise please update your package at the next upload. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please file a bug against ftp.debian.org and explain why. Please INCLUDE the list of packages as seen above, or we won't be able to deal with your request due to missing information. Please make sure that the subject of the bug you file follows the following format: Subject: override: BINARY1:section/priority, [...], BINARYX:section/priority Include the justification for the change in the body of the mail please. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you already filed a bug and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your bug needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
libva_1.0.15-4_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: libva-dev_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/libva-dev_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-egl1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/libva-egl1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-glx1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/libva-glx1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-tpi1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/libva-tpi1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-x11-1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/libva-x11-1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/libva1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva_1.0.15-4.debian.tar.gz to main/libv/libva/libva_1.0.15-4.debian.tar.gz libva_1.0.15-4.dsc to main/libv/libva/libva_1.0.15-4.dsc vainfo_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb to main/libv/libva/vainfo_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb Changes: libva (1.0.15-4) unstable; urgency=low . * Change section of vainfo to utils. Override entries for your package: libva-dev_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libva-egl1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libs libva-glx1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libs libva-tpi1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libs libva-x11-1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libs libva1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libs libva_1.0.15-4.dsc - source libs vainfo_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb - optional libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of opencore-amr_0.1.3-2_amd64.changes
opencore-amr_0.1.3-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.dsc opencore-amr_0.1.3-2.debian.tar.gz libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-2_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of libva_1.0.15-4_amd64.changes
libva_1.0.15-4_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: libva_1.0.15-4.dsc libva_1.0.15-4.debian.tar.gz libva-dev_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-x11-1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-glx1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-tpi1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb libva-egl1_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb vainfo_1.0.15-4_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664537: override: vo-amrwbenc binary packages
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal The override file needs to be updated for the following packages. libvo-amrwbenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. libvo-amrwbenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. These packages should be Priority:optional. There is nothing particularly special about them. They don't require a specific system setup or special knowledge in order to use them or develop with them. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664536: override: vo-aacenc0 binary packages
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal The override file needs to be updated for the following packages. libvo-aacenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. libvo-aacenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. These packages should be Priority:optional. These packages can reasonably be used by anyone and don't require any specific setup or knowledge to use them or develop with them. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664535: override: intel-vaapi-driver binary packages
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal The override file needs to be updated for the following packages. i965-va-driver_1.0.16-1_all.deb: package says section is oldlibs, override says libs. i965-va-driver_1.0.16-1_all.deb: package says priority is extra, override says optional. This is now a transitional package. It should be oldlibs/extra. libva-intel-vaapi-driver_1.0.16-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. This is the new name for the libva VAAPI Intel driver package. It should be priority optional. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
vo-amrwbenc override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libvo-amrwbenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. libvo-amrwbenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. Please note that a list of new sections were recently added to the archive: cli-mono, database, debug, fonts, gnu-r, gnustep, haskell, httpd, java, kernel, lisp, localization, ocaml, php, ruby, vcs, video, xfce, zope. At this time a script was used to reclassify packages into these sections. If this is the case, please only reply to this email if the new section is inappropriate, otherwise please update your package at the next upload. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please file a bug against ftp.debian.org and explain why. Please INCLUDE the list of packages as seen above, or we won't be able to deal with your request due to missing information. Please make sure that the subject of the bug you file follows the following format: Subject: override: BINARY1:section/priority, [...], BINARYX:section/priority Include the justification for the change in the body of the mail please. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you already filed a bug and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your bug needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: libvo-amrwbenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb to main/v/vo-amrwbenc/libvo-amrwbenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb libvo-amrwbenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb to main/v/vo-amrwbenc/libvo-amrwbenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb vo-amrwbenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb to main/v/vo-amrwbenc/vo-amrwbenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.debian.tar.gz to main/v/vo-amrwbenc/vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.debian.tar.gz vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.dsc to main/v/vo-amrwbenc/vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.dsc vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz to main/v/vo-amrwbenc/vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz Changes: vo-amrwbenc (0.1.2-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release. * Add myself to Uploaders field. * Set dpkg-source options as default for packaging. * Show compiler flags during builds. * Include static library in dev package. * Add lintian override for package-needs-versioned-debhelper-build-depends. * Bump to Standards-Version 3.9.3. * Change Priority for packages. Override entries for your package: libvo-amrwbenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb - extra libdevel libvo-amrwbenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb - extra libs vo-amrwbenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb - extra debug vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.dsc - source libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1_amd64.changes
vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.dsc vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz vo-amrwbenc_0.1.2-1.debian.tar.gz libvo-amrwbenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb libvo-amrwbenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb vo-amrwbenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
vo-aacenc override disparity
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libvo-aacenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. libvo-aacenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. Please note that a list of new sections were recently added to the archive: cli-mono, database, debug, fonts, gnu-r, gnustep, haskell, httpd, java, kernel, lisp, localization, ocaml, php, ruby, vcs, video, xfce, zope. At this time a script was used to reclassify packages into these sections. If this is the case, please only reply to this email if the new section is inappropriate, otherwise please update your package at the next upload. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please file a bug against ftp.debian.org and explain why. Please INCLUDE the list of packages as seen above, or we won't be able to deal with your request due to missing information. Please make sure that the subject of the bug you file follows the following format: Subject: override: BINARY1:section/priority, [...], BINARYX:section/priority Include the justification for the change in the body of the mail please. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you already filed a bug and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your bug needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: libvo-aacenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb to main/v/vo-aacenc/libvo-aacenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb libvo-aacenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb to main/v/vo-aacenc/libvo-aacenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb vo-aacenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb to main/v/vo-aacenc/vo-aacenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.debian.tar.gz to main/v/vo-aacenc/vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.debian.tar.gz vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.dsc to main/v/vo-aacenc/vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.dsc vo-aacenc_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz to main/v/vo-aacenc/vo-aacenc_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz Changes: vo-aacenc (0.1.2-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release. * Add myself to uploaders field. * Bump to Standards-Version 3.9.3. * Remove symbols files. * Include static library in dev package. * Show compiler flags during build. * Make dpkg-source options default for packaging. * Add lintian override for package-needs-versioned-debhelper-build-depends. * Change Priority of packages. Override entries for your package: libvo-aacenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb - extra libdevel libvo-aacenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb - extra libs vo-aacenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb - extra debug vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.dsc - source libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1_amd64.changes
vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.dsc vo-aacenc_0.1.2.orig.tar.gz vo-aacenc_0.1.2-1.debian.tar.gz libvo-aacenc-dev_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb libvo-aacenc0_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb vo-aacenc-dbg_0.1.2-1_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
RFS: rubyripper/0.6.2-3 [ITP] -- CD ripper
Hello,
I have packaged the Rubyripper application, and am currently looking for a
sponsor. Please see the RFS template email below, and this sponsorship-
requests bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=662955
Thanks.
--
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rubyripper"
* Package name: rubyripper
Version : 0.6.2-3
Upstream Author : Bouke Woudstra
* URL : https://code.google.com/p/rubyripper/
* License : GPL-3.0+
Section : sound
It builds those binary packages:
rubyripper-cli - Error-correcting compact disc digital audio extractor (CD
ripper). (CLI)
rubyripper-gtk2 - Error-correcting compact disc digital audio extractor (CD
ripper). (GUI)
To access further information about this package, please visit the following
URL:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/rubyripper
Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:
dget -x
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rubyripper/rubyripper_0.6.2-3.dsc
More information about rubyripper can be obtained from
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Rubyripper
Changes since the initial upload:
rubyripper (0.6.2-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Added patch to use 'normalize-audio' rather than 'normalize'.
Debian packaging renames the 'normalize' binary.
-- Scott Leggett Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:40:25 +0800
rubyripper (0.6.2-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Removed unnecessary ${shlibs:Depends} variable from dependencies.
* Change package priority to Optional.
* Unset unnecessary DH_VERBOSE in debian/rules.
* Add several optional packages to Suggests.
* Update debian/copyright to latest format.
* Improve package description in debian/control and manpage.
* Split upstream patch into two.
* Add two more patches to upstream:
Fix calls to deprecated API 'gettext/utils'.
Remove prerequisite to Makefile 'install' target to avoid compiling
translations twice.
* Disable updating of .po files due to crash in ruby 1.9.x.
* Add patch to use correct API for mofile generation function.
-- Scott Leggett Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:13:16 +0800
rubyripper (0.6.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
* Initial release (Closes: #463584).
-- Scott Leggett Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:43:09 +0800
--
Regards,
Scott.
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] libdvdcss/master: Update changelog.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-03-18 at 12:22pm, Andres Mejia wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard >> wrote: >> > On 12-03-17 at 02:49pm, Andres Mejia wrote: >> >> That pretty much means libdvdcss can be compiled on Debian down to >> >> old-stable (if backports is used) and Ubuntu oneiric. For >> >> supporting Ubuntu suites before oneiric, we could use a seperate >> >> branch and modify the install-css.sh script accordingly. >> > >> > backports.debian.org is a *specific* add-on branch. Relying in >> > backports.d.o really means that the package does *not* support >> > backporting to oldstable+backports (not plain oldstable). Some >> > (myself included) choose to locally backport _instead_ of mixing >> > with backports.d.o. >> > >> > The package can be made to truly support backporting to pure >> > oldstable using CDBS. I'd be happy to do that (or guide on how to >> > do it), if that is of any interest. > > [snip] > >> That's ok, was going to mention this will only work down to >> stable+backports and Ubuntu oneiric. I changed to debhelper (>= >> 8.1.3~) to support multiarch. Should oldstable be supported? > > You answer a question with a question :-) > > When you initially wrote "that's ok" above, did you then mean a) it is > ok with me that the packaging be "infected" with CDBS to improve > backportability? > > Or did you instead mean that b) it is ok that the packaging is > "infected" with short-form dh even though limiting backportability to > stable+backports, oldstable+backports and similar. > > > Packaging can support *both* multiarch *and* backportability to pure > oldstable. I do recognize, however, that the use of CDBS is considered > controversial by some, hence my asking instead of just doing it. > > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private > > ___ > pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list > pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers I meant that's ok, you don't have to convert libdvdcss to cdbs. I want to keep libdvdcss build dependencies as minimal as possible, hence why dh-autoreconf was removed. The reason to keep them minimal is because the installer script builds the package on the user's system. Thus the installer would only need debhelper (>= 8.1.3~), wget to get a snapshot of the git repository, apt for apt-get, and build-essential in order to build libdvdcss. -- ~ Andres ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] libdvdcss/master: Update changelog.
On 12-03-18 at 12:22pm, Andres Mejia wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard > wrote: > > On 12-03-17 at 02:49pm, Andres Mejia wrote: > >> That pretty much means libdvdcss can be compiled on Debian down to > >> old-stable (if backports is used) and Ubuntu oneiric. For > >> supporting Ubuntu suites before oneiric, we could use a seperate > >> branch and modify the install-css.sh script accordingly. > > > > backports.debian.org is a *specific* add-on branch. Relying in > > backports.d.o really means that the package does *not* support > > backporting to oldstable+backports (not plain oldstable). Some > > (myself included) choose to locally backport _instead_ of mixing > > with backports.d.o. > > > > The package can be made to truly support backporting to pure > > oldstable using CDBS. I'd be happy to do that (or guide on how to > > do it), if that is of any interest. [snip] > That's ok, was going to mention this will only work down to > stable+backports and Ubuntu oneiric. I changed to debhelper (>= > 8.1.3~) to support multiarch. Should oldstable be supported? You answer a question with a question :-) When you initially wrote "that's ok" above, did you then mean a) it is ok with me that the packaging be "infected" with CDBS to improve backportability? Or did you instead mean that b) it is ok that the packaging is "infected" with short-form dh even though limiting backportability to stable+backports, oldstable+backports and similar. Packaging can support *both* multiarch *and* backportability to pure oldstable. I do recognize, however, that the use of CDBS is considered controversial by some, hence my asking instead of just doing it. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
guayadeque 0.3.5~ds0-3 MIGRATED to testing
FYI: The status of the guayadeque source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 0.3.5~ds0-2 Current version: 0.3.5~ds0-3 -- This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive later changes on the next day. See http://release.debian.org/testing-watch/ for more information. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] libdvdcss/master: Update changelog.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-03-17 at 02:49pm, Andres Mejia wrote: >> That pretty much means libdvdcss can be compiled on Debian down to >> old-stable (if backports is used) and Ubuntu oneiric. For supporting >> Ubuntu suites before oneiric, we could use a seperate branch and >> modify the install-css.sh script accordingly. > > backports.debian.org is a *specific* add-on branch. Relying in > backports.d.o really means that the package does *not* support > backporting to oldstable+backports (not plain oldstable). Some (myself > included) choose to locally backport _instead_ of mixing with > backports.d.o. > > The package can be made to truly support backporting to pure oldstable > using CDBS. I'd be happy to do that (or guide on how to do it), if that > is of any interest. > > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private > > ___ > pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list > pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers That's ok, was going to mention this will only work down to stable+backports and Ubuntu oneiric. I changed to debhelper (>= 8.1.3~) to support multiarch. Should oldstable be supported? -- ~ Andres ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
opencore-amr_0.1.3-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb to main/o/opencore-amr/libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.debian.tar.gz to main/o/opencore-amr/opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.debian.tar.gz opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.dsc to main/o/opencore-amr/opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.dsc opencore-amr_0.1.3.orig.tar.gz to main/o/opencore-amr/opencore-amr_0.1.3.orig.tar.gz Changes: opencore-amr (0.1.3-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release. * Add default dpkg-source options for packaging. * Remove debian/patches directory, not needed currently. * Bump to Standards-Version 3.9.3. * Drop use of autotools-dev. * Show compiler flags used during builds. * Don't override CFLAGS or CXXFLAGS. Override entries for your package: libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb - extra debug libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb - optional libs libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb - extra debug libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb - optional libs opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.dsc - source libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of opencore-amr_0.1.3-1_amd64.changes
opencore-amr_0.1.3-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.dsc opencore-amr_0.1.3.orig.tar.gz opencore-amr_0.1.3-1.debian.tar.gz libopencore-amrnb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrnb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb-dev_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb libopencore-amrwb0-dbg_0.1.3-1_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664523: Lives doesn't work with Jack
Package: lives Version: 1.6.1~ds1-1 If i start lives, i want to choose the audio system. I want to choose Jack as audio system. The problem is: if i choose Jack as audio system, lives try to start PulseAudio. See the FAQ on the jack homepage: http://jackaudio.org/pulseaudio_and_jack I use Option 1: I don't have installed PulseAudio. I don't want to install PulseAudio exclusively for lives. If you need further informations, please let me know. Best regards Bernhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] libdvdcss/master: Update changelog.
On 12-03-17 at 02:49pm, Andres Mejia wrote: > That pretty much means libdvdcss can be compiled on Debian down to > old-stable (if backports is used) and Ubuntu oneiric. For supporting > Ubuntu suites before oneiric, we could use a seperate branch and > modify the install-css.sh script accordingly. backports.debian.org is a *specific* add-on branch. Relying in backports.d.o really means that the package does *not* support backporting to oldstable+backports (not plain oldstable). Some (myself included) choose to locally backport _instead_ of mixing with backports.d.o. The package can be made to truly support backporting to pure oldstable using CDBS. I'd be happy to do that (or guide on how to do it), if that is of any interest. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664512: marked as done (xvidcore: CPPFLAGS hardening flags missing)
Your message dated Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:55:12 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#664512: fixed in xvidcore 2:1.3.2-9
has caused the Debian Bug report #664512,
regarding xvidcore: CPPFLAGS hardening flags missing
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.)
--
664512: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=664512
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: xvidcore
Version: 2:1.3.2.-8
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
The CPPFLAGS hardening flags are missing because the build system
ignores them.
The following patch fixes the issue by adding them to CFLAGS. For
more hardening information please have a look at [1], [2] and
[3].
diff -Nru xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags
--- xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags 2012-03-17 18:49:16.0 +0100
+++ xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags 2012-03-18 14:58:51.0 +0100
@@ -8,6 +8,10 @@
HARDENED_CFLAGS = -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat
-Wformat-security -Werror=format-security
endif
+# The build system doesn't use CPPFLAGS, pass them to CFLAGS to enable the
+# missing (hardening) flags.
+HARDENED_CFLAGS += $(shell dpkg-buildflags --get CPPFLAGS) -g
+
# Set CFLAGS from DEB_CFLAGS if defined, otherwise let xvidcore's build system
# set CFLAGS to use.
DEFAULT_CFLAGS = -Wall -O3 -fstrength-reduce -finline-functions -ffast-math \
The attached patch enables verbose builds to make it easy to
(automatically) spot missing hardening flags. Please add it too.
To check if all flags were correctly enabled you can use
`hardening-check` from the hardening-includes package and check
the build log (hardening-check doesn't catch everything):
$ hardening-check /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxvidcore.so.4.3
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxvidcore.so.4.3:
Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored)
Stack protected: yes
Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found)
Read-only relocations: yes
Immediate binding: no not found!
(Immediate binding is not enabled by default.)
Use find -type f \( -executable -o -name \*.so\* \) -exec
hardening-check {} + on the build result to check all files.
Regards,
Simon
[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/SecurityHardeningBuildFlags
[2]: https://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough
[3]: https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
--
+ privacy is necessary
+ using gnupg http://gnupg.org
+ public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9
Description: Show compiler messages when compiling.
Necessary to detect missing (hardening) flags during build.
Author: Simon Ruderich
Last-Update: 2012-03-18
Index: xvidcore-1.3.2/vfw/bin/Makefile
===
--- xvidcore-1.3.2.orig/vfw/bin/Makefile 2012-03-18 14:46:11.048562931 +0100
+++ xvidcore-1.3.2/vfw/bin/Makefile 2012-03-18 14:48:57.420569263 +0100
@@ -60,12 +60,12 @@
$(BUILD_DIR):
@echo " D: $(BUILD_DIR)"
- @mkdir -p $(BUILD_DIR)
+ mkdir -p $(BUILD_DIR)
.rc.obj:
@echo " W: $(@D)/$(
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: xvidcore
Source-Version: 2:1.3.2-9
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
xvidcore, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
libxvidcore-dev_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb
to main/x/xvidcore/libxvidcore-dev_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb
libxvidcore4_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb
to main/x/xvidcore/libxvidcore4_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb
xvidcore_1.3.2-9.debian.tar.gz
to main/x/xvidcore/xvidcore_1.3.2-9.debian.tar.gz
xvidcore_1.3.2-9.dsc
to main/x/xvidcore/xvidcore_1.3.2-9.dsc
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 664...@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Andres Mejia (supplier of updated xvidcore package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmas...@debian.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:15:39 -0400
Source: xvidcore
Binary: libxvidcore4 libxvidcore-dev
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 2:1.3.2-9
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers
Changed-By: Andres Mejia
Description:
libxvidcore-dev - Open so
xvidcore_1.3.2-9_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: libxvidcore-dev_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb to main/x/xvidcore/libxvidcore-dev_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb libxvidcore4_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb to main/x/xvidcore/libxvidcore4_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb xvidcore_1.3.2-9.debian.tar.gz to main/x/xvidcore/xvidcore_1.3.2-9.debian.tar.gz xvidcore_1.3.2-9.dsc to main/x/xvidcore/xvidcore_1.3.2-9.dsc Changes: xvidcore (2:1.3.2-9) unstable; urgency=low . * Pass hardened CPPFLAGS to CFLAGS. (Closes: #664512) Override entries for your package: libxvidcore-dev_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libxvidcore4_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb - optional libs xvidcore_1.3.2-9.dsc - source libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Closing bugs: 664512 Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of xvidcore_1.3.2-9_amd64.changes
xvidcore_1.3.2-9_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: xvidcore_1.3.2-9.dsc xvidcore_1.3.2-9.debian.tar.gz libxvidcore4_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb libxvidcore-dev_1.3.2-9_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] libdvdcss/master: Update changelog.
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
>> About these latest changes, I removed the build dependency on
>> dh-autoreconf because a) it wasn't necessary, and b) because if we are
>
> It is, because we add
> libdvdcss_la_CFLAGS = -fvisibility=hidden
> in src/Makefile.am
> through debian/patches/symbol-visibility.patch.
>
> Please get this right again. The flag could get added globally to CFLAGS
> in debian/rules, for example.
>
> - Fabian
>
Ok, done.
About your patch, you could do the same for private symbols with a
#define, thus your change doesn't have to be gcc specific. For
example.
#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 4
#define LIBDVDCSS_PRIVATE __attribute__((visibility("hidden")))
#else
#define LIBDVDCSS_PRIVATE
#endif
And prepend all private symbols with LIBDVDCSS_PRIVATE.
--
~ Andres
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#664512: xvidcore: CPPFLAGS hardening flags missing
Source: xvidcore
Version: 2:1.3.2.-8
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
The CPPFLAGS hardening flags are missing because the build system
ignores them.
The following patch fixes the issue by adding them to CFLAGS. For
more hardening information please have a look at [1], [2] and
[3].
diff -Nru xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags
--- xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags 2012-03-17 18:49:16.0 +0100
+++ xvidcore-1.3.2/debian/confflags 2012-03-18 14:58:51.0 +0100
@@ -8,6 +8,10 @@
HARDENED_CFLAGS = -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat
-Wformat-security -Werror=format-security
endif
+# The build system doesn't use CPPFLAGS, pass them to CFLAGS to enable the
+# missing (hardening) flags.
+HARDENED_CFLAGS += $(shell dpkg-buildflags --get CPPFLAGS) -g
+
# Set CFLAGS from DEB_CFLAGS if defined, otherwise let xvidcore's build system
# set CFLAGS to use.
DEFAULT_CFLAGS = -Wall -O3 -fstrength-reduce -finline-functions -ffast-math \
The attached patch enables verbose builds to make it easy to
(automatically) spot missing hardening flags. Please add it too.
To check if all flags were correctly enabled you can use
`hardening-check` from the hardening-includes package and check
the build log (hardening-check doesn't catch everything):
$ hardening-check /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxvidcore.so.4.3
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxvidcore.so.4.3:
Position Independent Executable: no, regular shared library (ignored)
Stack protected: yes
Fortify Source functions: yes (some protected functions found)
Read-only relocations: yes
Immediate binding: no not found!
(Immediate binding is not enabled by default.)
Use find -type f \( -executable -o -name \*.so\* \) -exec
hardening-check {} + on the build result to check all files.
Regards,
Simon
[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/SecurityHardeningBuildFlags
[2]: https://wiki.debian.org/HardeningWalkthrough
[3]: https://wiki.debian.org/Hardening
--
+ privacy is necessary
+ using gnupg http://gnupg.org
+ public key id: 0x92FEFDB7E44C32F9
Description: Show compiler messages when compiling.
Necessary to detect missing (hardening) flags during build.
Author: Simon Ruderich
Last-Update: 2012-03-18
Index: xvidcore-1.3.2/vfw/bin/Makefile
===
--- xvidcore-1.3.2.orig/vfw/bin/Makefile 2012-03-18 14:46:11.048562931 +0100
+++ xvidcore-1.3.2/vfw/bin/Makefile 2012-03-18 14:48:57.420569263 +0100
@@ -60,12 +60,12 @@
$(BUILD_DIR):
@echo " D: $(BUILD_DIR)"
- @mkdir -p $(BUILD_DIR)
+ mkdir -p $(BUILD_DIR)
.rc.obj:
@echo " W: $(@D)/$(
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Debian Multimedia (Unofficial) Promotion
Hi there.
On Mar 17 2012, Andres Mejia wrote:
> Here's my first try at writing better documentation about installing
> extra multimedia codecs. Takes away the need for installing the deb
> line to apt.
> http://wiki.debian.org/MultimediaCodecs
Could a brief paragraph be added to tell the users why they might want to
use the *-extra-* packages?
It is not really clear, because:
* the *-extra-* packages are in main.
* the long descriptions don't contain anything that I can see (e.g., looking
at libavcodec-extra-53).
Also, it would be good to explain why (in terms of codecs, not regarding
packaging conflicts or whatever :)) a user might want to grab a package from
Christian's repository and not from Debian.
Regards,
Rogério.
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFC
http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog : Projects : https://github.com/rbrito/
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
faad2_2.7-8_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: faad2-dbg_2.7-8_amd64.deb to main/f/faad2/faad2-dbg_2.7-8_amd64.deb faad2_2.7-8.debian.tar.gz to main/f/faad2/faad2_2.7-8.debian.tar.gz faad2_2.7-8.dsc to main/f/faad2/faad2_2.7-8.dsc faad_2.7-8_amd64.deb to main/f/faad2/faad_2.7-8_amd64.deb libfaad-dev_2.7-8_amd64.deb to main/f/faad2/libfaad-dev_2.7-8_amd64.deb libfaad2_2.7-8_amd64.deb to main/f/faad2/libfaad2_2.7-8_amd64.deb Changes: faad2 (2.7-8) unstable; urgency=low . [ Fabian Greffrath ] * debian/patches/path_max.patch: + Dynamically allocate file name buffers, instead of relying on PATH_MAX. * Set appropriate symbol visibility attributes. * Rebuild autofoo with dh-autoreconf. * Add debian/libfaad2.symbols file. * Multi-Archify. * Remove redundant license blurb from debian/copyright. * libmp4ff ist not packaged, so do not install it either. * Simplify debian/*.install accordingly. . [ Andres Mejia ] * Make dev package multiarch installable. * Bump to Standards-Version 3.9.3. Override entries for your package: faad2-dbg_2.7-8_amd64.deb - extra debug faad2_2.7-8.dsc - source libs faad_2.7-8_amd64.deb - optional sound libfaad-dev_2.7-8_amd64.deb - optional libdevel libfaad2_2.7-8_amd64.deb - optional libs Announcing to debian-devel-chan...@lists.debian.org Thank you for your contribution to Debian. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Processing of faad2_2.7-8_amd64.changes
faad2_2.7-8_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: faad2_2.7-8.dsc faad2_2.7-8.debian.tar.gz libfaad-dev_2.7-8_amd64.deb libfaad2_2.7-8_amd64.deb faad2-dbg_2.7-8_amd64.deb faad_2.7-8_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] libdvdcss/master: Update changelog.
> About these latest changes, I removed the build dependency on > dh-autoreconf because a) it wasn't necessary, and b) because if we are It is, because we add libdvdcss_la_CFLAGS = -fvisibility=hidden in src/Makefile.am through debian/patches/symbol-visibility.patch. Please get this right again. The flag could get added globally to CFLAGS in debian/rules, for example. - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] faad2/master: Set release as UNRELEASED. Current release hasn't been released yet.
> Should this have been uploaded? I don't see a 2.7-8 release in either > Debian or Ubuntu. It's not yet uploaded, but I consider it ready. All our patches have been applied upstream, with the exception of one I think. - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Chris Knadle writes: >> On Saturday, March 17, 2012 21:53:18, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> Hence the Debian patent policy. > >>> We can't just ignore things like this, nor is it responsible use of >>> project resources to openly flaunt disobedience to laws, however >>> ill-conceived. But neither is it Debian policy to seek out trouble >>> when that trouble isn't forthcoming. > >>> If you do want to be part of an organization that openly disobeys >>> stupid laws and makes a point of civil disobedience, more power to you. >>> I personally will be cheering you on. But the Debian Project is not >>> that organization, nor is it structured to be that organization (and >>> carefully structuring such an organization is important). The Debian >>> Project has other goals, which mostly require that it work within the >>> legal framework that it has available while making public statements >>> when that legal framework interferes with project goals. > >> The above explains the whole reason d-m.o exists. > >> However perhaps it also might explain the tenuous relationship d.o has >> with d-m.o because d.o may need to distance itself from the work d-m.o >> does. > > Yup. Exactly. Christian is taking on himself the legal risk of providing > those packages, which the project as a whole can't really do. Discussion > about the confusion that can be caused by some of the other packages he > carries aside (and I do think that issue is real), I for one thank him for > his work. It would be great if dmo would restrict itself to this, or at least separate these "add-on" packages from packages that are problematic. Unfortunately, dmo does not categorize his archive in a way that would allow recommending at least parts. Therefore, adding this archive to the package sources of a system remains harmful. -- regards, Reinhard ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
