Re: openmovieeditor in debian
Hi guys, |--==> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:51:29 +0200, Reinhard Tartler said: RT> Hi Free, RT> long time no see, how's it going? I'm fine hope you too! I'm keeping an eye on the ml, but don't really have much time to contribute actively. RT> After browsing the list of open bugs in the pkg-multimedia team [1], RT> I've noticed that the openmovieeditor is not really in a good shape; it RT> has a grave bug open and unanswered for several months now. Moreover, RT> the version that we ship is over three years old. I now wonder what to RT> do with it. RT> Essentially, I see the following options: RT> a) two members of pkg-multimedia express their interest in updating the RT>package [2] RT> b) we orphan the package RT> c) we request its removal from Debian I can't help keeping the package in a reasonable state, so if Alessio too doesn't have bandwidth for it, I agree with him about removing it from the archive. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bits from the Debian Multimedia team
Hi Felipe, |--==> On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:00:44 -0300, Felipe Sateler said: FS> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 13:44, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>I propose we wait one more week in case somebody else wants to add >>something FS> OK, a week has passed. I am sending the announcement. That was a great! It's really an impressive amount of stuff that happened during the cycle :) BTW I really like the idea of using debian-multime...@l.d.o for general discussions interesting also for people outside the team. It should definitely help cross-team interactions or random users willing to subscribe but not follow development issues in detail. Cheers! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Debian Multimedia Blend
Hey, |--==> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:01:43 +0200, Andreas Tille said: AT> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:59:57PM +0200, Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>nice to see you keep pushing Debian Blends :) AT> Free, nice to hear from you again! \o/ Same here! :) >>Yes, the DeMuDi idea is quite old and eventually evolved in the 64 >>Studio project, which is more a Debian remix/customization than an >>official Debian Blend. At some point there was an AGNULA/DeMuDi >>implementation too, but not 100% Debian either. I still like the name >>"DeMuDi", so if it could be incarnated in some new Blend-based project >>it would be great :) AT> If you ask me: DeMuDi sounds way cooler than Debian Multimedia (and by AT> the way has the extra advantage that it can not mixed up with AT> debian-multimedia.org which Google tricked me in twice). So I'd be AT> in big favour of DeMuDi (and hope the other way around that this name AT> is not covered by some restrictions which might be remain by the AT> EU-project). As far as I know the name "AGNULA" is a trademark owned by the EC, however "DeMuDi" per-se it's not, so it should be fine to use. >>However I have not enough time to push for that, so >>if nothing new comes in, feel free to remove it from the docs. AT> Just tell me if I should update the docs and I will do so. I guess it depends if somebody on this list has interest in pushing this forward, if not maybe it could be marked as "dormant" or something? Cheers, Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Debian Multimedia Blend
Hi Andreas! nice to see you keep pushing Debian Blends :) |--==> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:01:10 +0200, Andreas Tille said: AT> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 11:50:16AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>As seen on the documentation, there is already a DeMuDi blend. Maybe we >>can start from there? DeMuDi people were part one of the 2 teams that >>merged into this one (d-multime...@lists.debian.org). AT> Thanks for reminding me that the doc is a bit outdated. The DeMuDi AT> Blend idea is quite old and Free was involved into this topic but AT> as far as I know there is no existing technicla implementation. I AT> should fix this in the doc (but perhaps I weit with fixing until the AT> discussion here proceeds to some point). Yes, the DeMuDi idea is quite old and eventually evolved in the 64 Studio project, which is more a Debian remix/customization than an official Debian Blend. At some point there was an AGNULA/DeMuDi implementation too, but not 100% Debian either. I still like the name "DeMuDi", so if it could be incarnated in some new Blend-based project it would be great :) However I have not enough time to push for that, so if nothing new comes in, feel free to remove it from the docs. Cheers, Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: packaging jack - cross-distro coordination
Hi, |--==> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:11:27 +0200, Reinhard Tartler said: RT> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 09:00:17 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: >> >>>We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story. >> >>Thanks for a clear cut message. >> >>I can accept that. >> >>If noone else has a say against it within the next 24h (where I am busy >>anyway attending some family business) I will release jackd2 as a >>replacement for jackd1 (i.e. using same source and binary package >>names). RT> I support this approach. I'm all for it as well, it looks like the most reasonable move to me, glad to see things will move forward. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jackd2 ready to roll
Hi, |--==> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 15:56:24 +0200, Adrian Knoth said: [...] AK> What I've seen in the team so far: make it work. Besides this, there are AK> no to few rules. AK> We don't have a "please beginners" policy. Totally. The only strong points we have as team are listed here http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMultimedia/DevelopPackaging#Packagingguidelines and they are pretty packaging-tool-agnostic (re CDBS/DH7/whatever). We have a lot of packages to care of and limited resources (it's almost all volunteer work), so I think it makes sense to let whoever gets the job done decide about how to do it, as long as it is compliant with the Debian Policy and the few guidelines above. Btw, thanks a lot Jonas and Adrian for pushing jack2->unstable forward. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Jack2 for squeeze, was: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi Reinhard, |--==> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:23:50 +0200, Reinhard Tartler said: RT> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 23:11:58 (CET), Free Ekanayaka wrote: AK> If you don't fear the lack of Debian-wide testing, go ahead and upload AK> 1.9.5 to unstable. The users would probably appreciate this. >> >>I'm gonna do that. RT> Will this require rebuilds or other changes to packages in the archive? RT> If yes, then we need to coordinate this upload with the release team to RT> not disturb ongoing transitions! It won't require any rebuild. The two libraries are API and ABI compatible. RT> Moreover, I think this is an important move that should be mentioned in RT> the release notes. Perhaps someone from our jack wizzards can word something? Good point, Adrian would you be up for doing that? Or otherwise I think I know enough on the matter that I can do it myself. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi, |--==> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:20:57 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard said: JS> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:11:58PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: AK> * audio.conf handling. Right now, it cannot be tweaked by the user. AK> Sure it can, but the package will overwrite it on updates. Though AK> this will be fine in almost all cases (we provide a sensible AK> default), it's clearly a policy violation. In the git repo, I have AK> a dpkg approach, but that's inferior to ucf. >> AK> If somebody with lots of conffile experience is around, feel free AK> to implement it correctly. ;) >> >>Yeah, we should address this somehow. The dpkg approach might not be >>optimal, but at least it doesn't overwrite the file on updates. JS> I guess I am guilty of complicating that issue. JS> Let's just use a plain simple dpkg conffile. I feel that my time is JS> better spent on other things piling up :-/ A plain conffile works for me. We really don't need anything fancy for such a simple file which is probably not going to be modified at all in most cases. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi Adrian, |--==> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:49:51 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> I completely agree with you: it has more features, it is stable, and I'm AK> also using it instead of jackd1. AK> If you don't fear the lack of Debian-wide testing, go ahead and upload AK> 1.9.5 to unstable. The users would probably appreciate this. I'm gonna do that. AK> I see three open issues: AK>* FFADO port naming needs to be redone. Upstream issue, I'll take care. AK>* copy manpages from jackd1 package to jackd2. Anybody can do this. ;) AK>* audio.conf handling. Right now, it cannot be tweaked by the user. AK> Sure it can, but the package will overwrite it on updates. Though AK> this will be fine in almost all cases (we provide a sensible AK> default), it's clearly a policy violation. In the git repo, I have AK> a dpkg approach, but that's inferior to ucf. AK> If somebody with lots of conffile experience is around, feel free AK> to implement it correctly. ;) Yeah, we should address this somehow. The dpkg approach might not be optimal, but at least it doesn't overwrite the file on updates. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi, |--==> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:53:15 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:34:07PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: AK> [jackd2 over jackd1] >>> jack1) and apparently is what the upstream recommends as well. >> >>I see no such thing on their webpage, nor in their mailing list >>(although I don't pay that much attention there). AK> This was also new to me. I never came across such a recommendation. Okay, so I guess it was only my misunderstanding on my part. I don't recall exactly where I read it, but I remember something about new features being implemented only in jack2, though this might not be entirely true anymore. >>Maybe asking upstream is a good idea. AK> I already did, the answer was: "Huu, this is a political question." AK> Which in turn means: technically speaking, it's fine to use either of AK> the versions. So let's use the best one of them or the one we feel meets the needs of our users most. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi, |--==> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:08:10 +0100, Reinhard Tartler said: RT> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:28:42 (CET), Free Ekanayaka wrote: RT> there is currently a vote on this ongoing right now... >> >>I'm sorry, I think I missed it, can you point me to it? RT> hm. it seems the message at RT> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2010-March/008415.html RT> is archived defectively. In that mail, I wrote this: Thanks for reporting. So, my opinion is that we should definitely have jack2 in squeeze, because it seems to be better (that is more features, and as stable as jack1) and apparently is what the upstream recommends as well. FWIW I've been using it daily for nearly one year, and also used for a few production projects. Adrian, what's your take at this point? I guess as far as jack is concerned you're one of the most knowledgeable among us. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi Reinhard, |--==> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:13:12 +0100, Reinhard Tartler said: RT> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 23:30:56 (CET), Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>Hi, >> >>|--==> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:48:45 +, Archive Administrator said: >> AA> Reject Reasons: AA> Source package jack-audio-connection-kit does not have 'DM-Upload-Allowed: yes' in its most recent version (1.9.4+svn3842-2) >> >>I can sponsor this upload to experimental. However I'm wondering if we >>should rather upload 1.9.4+svn3842-2 to unstable at this point. RT> there is currently a vote on this ongoing right now... I'm sorry, I think I missed it, can you point me to it? Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi Andrian, |--==> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:17:59 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> Why 1.9.4+something and not 1.9.5? Sorry, I meant 1.9.5-1. AK> I'd like to sort out the config file issue (dpkg vs. ucf), but we could AK> probably upload d2c23abd119cdf7f40654fa443e2a51cf6265893, that is, AK> before I touched the (re-)generation of audio.conf AK> We currently only have one version of this file shipped to the user, so AK> we're talking about one MD5 sum and a second one for our new version if AK> we lower the rt-priority from 99 to 95. This seems a good idea to me, AK> because there's no need for highest rt prios, they should be left to AK> watchdogs which will kill rt processes if they hook up all cpu time. AK> Though modern kernels never grant all cpu time to rt kernels anymore, AK> it's just not necessary to run audio stuff at rtprio 95. jackd usually AK> runs at 10. That sounds good to me. Once all the rough edges are polished I think it's good to upload jack2 to unstable so we can get more testing and feedback. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Hi, |--==> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:48:45 +, Archive Administrator said: AA> Reject Reasons: AA> Source package jack-audio-connection-kit does not have 'DM-Upload-Allowed: yes' in its most recent version (1.9.4+svn3842-2) I can sponsor this upload to experimental. However I'm wondering if we should rather upload 1.9.4+svn3842-2 to unstable at this point. Ciao, Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Coordinating Ardour 2.8.6 in Debian and Ubuntu Studio
Hi, |--==> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:08:02 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 02:00:49PM +, scottalaven...@gmail.com wrote: >>Hello all, AK> Hi! >>I'm working with the Ubuntu Studio developers and I was hoping to >>coordinate getting Ardour 2.8.6 into Ubuntu as it is also going into >>Debian. AK> I have Ardour 2.8.6 ready in our git repository to be uploaded, I'm just AK> waiting for my maintainer key to be added so I'll actually be allowed to AK> do so. AK> If need be, I can send you the orig.tar.gz, diff.gz and dsc. >>We have a feature freeze soon and I was curious if a tentative schedule >>exists for getting Ardour 2.8.6 into Debian so we can possibly sync for >>Lucid or at least use the same orig.tz.gz so a merge might be possible >>later on. AK> Proposal: If you don't see ardour-2.8.6 in Debian until the end of next AK> week, ping me. I'll then finalize the changelog and send you the package AK> exactly how it would (will) go into Debian. As it might take a while till Adrian gets his key in the ring, I sponsored this upload. Hope it's fine. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: RFS: idjc
Hi Alessio, AT> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Archive Administrator AT> wrote: >>Reject Reasons: >>Source package idjc does not have 'DM-Upload-Allowed: yes' in its most recent version (0.8.1-1) AT> Err. AT> The package is ready and needs a sponsor. AT> Before uploading, please remember to get the original tarball from AT> here [1], there are some problem with the pristine-tar branch that I AT> will fix with the next upstream release. I can sponsor this upload. However there a problem with this command in the clean target: rm -fv idjcpython/idjc_config.py because it removes a file which was actually there in the pristine extracted source package. Steps to reproduce: git clone git://git.debian.org/pkg-multimedia/idjc.git fakeroot ./debian/rules clean git status # On branch master # Changed but not updated: # (use "git add/rm ..." to update what will be committed) # (use "git checkout -- ..." to discard changes in working directory) # # deleted:idjcpython/idjc_config.py # This problem was not introduced in this revision, but it would be nice to fix it before uploading. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: fosd-kor, Was: Possible problems in your Debian packages
Hi Reinhard, |--==> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:50:48 +0100, Reinhard Tartler said: [...] RT> It seems that the fusd-kor package is currently in a pretty bad RT> state. I'm wondering how to proceed with this package. I see the RT> following options: RT> a) fix it, move it to pkg-multimedia umbrella RT> b) orphan it, move it to QA team/collab-maint RT> c) request its removal from the debian archive RT> I understand that your time is rather limited these days, so I think a) RT> is not really an option unless someone else from pkg-multimedia steps up RT> and supports fusd-kor. RT> My personal opinion: since oss is deprecated and fusd-cor upstream looks RT> rather dead (no news since may 2007 on the website), I'd vote for c). Indeed fusd-kor (which is used by oss2jack) is not very useful anymore. I believe all major distributions are dropping OSS support at all, and the jack ALSA plugin combined with the snd-oss module can do job. Luckily there are very few OSS-only applications these days, mainly legacy non-free ones I'd say. So all in all, I agree we should request its removal from Debian, and I'll do it shortly if nobody objects or wants to take over its maintenance. Thanks for bringing this up. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: [SCM] bristol packaging branch, master, updated. upstream/0.40.7-5-g83bc79b
Hi, |--==> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:36:54 +0100, Reinhard Tartler said: RT> quadrispro-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org writes: >>diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control >>index 490d3fa..6ef3958 100644 >>--- a/debian/control >>+++ b/debian/control >>@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ Section: sound >>Priority: optional >>Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers >>Uploaders: Alessio Treglia >>+DM-Upload-Allowed: yes >>Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7.0.50), >>libx11-dev, >>x11proto-core-dev, RT> Do we have a 2nd supporter of bristol in this team? Now yes, me. However, with bristol I've really hit the limit of packages I have time to co-maintain, so I don't think I'll step in any other package in the near future. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: how do we prepare for jack1 and jack2?
Hi, |--==> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:48 +0100, rosea grammostola said: rg> Hi, rg> I was wondering. We will have jack1 and jack2 in future right? When do rg> you use jack1 and when jack2? rg> Should we already change the dependencies from jackd to jackd or rg> jack1 or jack2 or something? Actually the plan is to replace jack1 with jack2 once we are happy enough with the latter. Note that the two are fully API/ABI compatible, so the other packages won't be really affected. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: JACK2 package naming convention
Hi Daniel, |--==> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:59:49 +0100, Daniel James said: DJ> Hi Free, >>If >>we want to start working on jack2, while letting users stick to jack1 >>till everything is really polished, I suggest uploading jack2 to >>experimental. DJ> Sounds like a good plan :-) Can I get the JACK 1.9.3 packages DJ> sponsored for upload to experimental? Or do they need more work first? DJ> http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2.dsc DJ> http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2.tar.gz DJ> http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2_source.changes Adrian imported the sources above into the jack-audio-connection-kit git repository on Alioth and updated it a bit. I've been using it for a while an I think it's in good shape, I just uploaded it to experimental. If it turns to be stable for most of us, I'd be happy to move it to unstable, maybe in a couple of months or so. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#560840: ardour: Frontier Design Tranzport surface support is missing
Hi Adrian, |--==> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:54:35 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:45:15PM +0100, Alessandro Frigeri wrote: >>as reported in the ubuntu package bug report >>(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ardour/+bug/248269) the >>libardour_tranzport.so driver is missing in the debian package tree as AK> We already had this bug report: AK>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559526 AK> And as outlined there, Tranzport-support will be added in 2.8.4-2, that AK> is, in the next upload. AK> So all I have to do is close this bug report. ;) So just to be extra-sure, is the package ready to be uploaded? Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: RFS: jackd
Hi Adrian, |--==> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:49:02 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:33:18PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>Hi Adrian, AK> Hi! >>Thanks for having changed this! I'm not too convinced by the idea of not >>including the 32bit library, I guess it would be handy for some users >>and it wouldn't hurt the others. AK> I must confess I'm not up-to-date about the current way of multiarch in AK> Debian. AFAIK, the chroot thing is only the last resort. Then, there was AK> a time with fat (multiarch) binaries (the Apple way), but this seems to AK> be abandoned. Or not, I don't know. AK> Then, there is some magic with ia32-apt-get which installs i386 packages AK> side-by-side on amd64 systems. AK> That's the approach I had in mind, and this would work: an amd64 user in AK> need for 32bit jack clients would have two libjack0 packages, one amd64 AK> and one i386 version. Oh, okay, I had misunderstood that then. I agree this would be a good way to do it, and it's matching what some other packages already do. AK> I don't think there's consensus in Debian to automatically ship 32bit AK> libs in 64bit-packages, but if somebody has better knowledge, I'm happy AK> to add the four lines it'll take to support it. I think the solution you described is the one mostly adopted. There's no pressure to go for it right now though. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: RFS: jackd
Hi Adrian, |--==> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:22:31 +0100, Adrian Knoth said: AK> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:11PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: >>Hi Adrian, AK> Hi! AK> [jackd2] >>Great job! I've been trying it and looks very stable. Do you think it's >>possible to activate the mixed 32/64 bits support? It lets people AK> I did this: AK> http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia/jack-audio-connection-kit.git;a=commitdiff;h=f738c9212a99be2b99a5b86b6830f0aeb85ccbf7 AK> There is one related question: the --mixed flag also builds an i386 lib AK> on amd64, hence the g++-multilib build-dependency. AK> This 32bit library isn't really needed, the user can always install the AK> native i386 lib in his chroot (or in parallel to /usr/lib32). AK> So I decided not to include the 32bit lib in the amd64 package, but AK> simply enable the amd64 jackd2 to talk to 32bit clients, that is, AK> programs that depend on libjack0-version-i386.deb (chroot or similar, as AK> already mentioned) Thanks for having changed this! I'm not too convinced by the idea of not including the 32bit library, I guess it would be handy for some users and it wouldn't hurt the others. However it's a good start already, so if you don't want to include the lib for now, that's fine for me. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#540427: Real patch for my NMU
Hi, |--==> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:05:49 +0100 (CET), Jaromír Mikeš said: >>Od: Cyril Brulebois >> >>Sorry about the first NMU, looks like I only removed libc6-dev from >>Build-Depends on a porter box, and checked it was OK there; and only >>wrote about it on my devel box, where the NMU was prepared. Hopefully >>the next one is OK. Sorry about that. JM> Hi, JM> I am just preparing new release of jconv ... renamed package and binary to jconvolver 0.8.4 JM> this removing these bugs:#529774, #540427, #554638 Please don't forget to import the changes from this NMU to the new sources. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: RFS: Jconvolver was:[Bug#559516: FTBFS on various archs]
Hi Mira, |--==> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:58:22 +0100 (CET), Jaromír Mikeš said: JM> Od: Free Ekanayaka JM> Just one other concern ... Should be jconv renamed to jconvolver to not be JM> confusing? JM> If so how to do it? FE> Unless there's a very compelling reason for doing so, I'd rather not FE> because that would probably require to provide transitional dummy FE> packages (okay, the package was not in Lenny, so this is not FE> super-critical, but still nice to do). JM> Hi, JM> There was a typo in my post... JM> correction... "Should be jconv repo renamed ..." JM> oh.. package is already renamed to jconvolver ... I didn't realize that it brings such difficulties. JM> I asked on ML what I should be aware if I consider rename package... no answer... Yes, sorry, I should have mentioned it before. As you already renamed it, let's try to go on with this. JM> so I thought it is not problematic If you change the source package name, the package will end up in the NEW queue, so we'll have to make it sure that the renaming is well explained in the changelog. Given that this is a relatively new package and it's not in stable, I guess it's okay to not provide dummy migration packages. Ciao, Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#540427: Real patch for my NMU
|--==> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 06:19:40 +0100, Cyril Brulebois said: CB> Sorry about the first NMU, looks like I only removed libc6-dev from CB> Build-Depends on a porter box, and checked it was OK there; and only CB> wrote about it on my devel box, where the NMU was prepared. Hopefully CB> the next one is OK. Sorry about that. No worries. Thanks for having fixed this. Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: RFS: Jconvolver was:[Bug#559516: FTBFS on various archs]
Hi Mira, |--==> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:31:04 +0100 (CET), Jaromír Mikeš said: >>Od: Free Ekanayaka JM> I suggesting upload zita-convolver 2.0.0-2 (with Fons's JM> suggestions) than I finish Jconvolver 0.8.4 and make some tests JM> with these flags. In the case there will be some performance JM> improvements we can release zita-convolver 2.0.0-3 than with JM> cflags for sse instructions. JM> What you think? FE> Sounds good to me, I just uploaded it. JM> I already changed patch (and push commit) following Fons's JM> instructions and made test build here. FE> Cool, thanks for checking this with Fons! JM> Hi, JM> thank you for uploading. JM> I just finished Jconvolver package ... it is lintian clean and ready for upload. JM> Now I will try make some performance tests for zita-convolver with sse cflags and without. JM> I suspect Jconvolver that it can be quite hungry resource eater (convoltion reverbs usually are) so even 10-15% improvment can be lovely. JM> I will inform about my experience. Sounds good to me. JM> Just one other concern ... Should be jconv renamed to jconvolver to not be confusing? JM> If so how to do it? Unless there's a very compelling reason for doing so, I'd rather not because that would probably require to provide transitional dummy packages (okay, the package was not in Lenny, so this is not super-critical, but still nice to do). Ciao! Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: Bug#559516: FTBFS on various archs
Hi Mira, |--==> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:55:00 +0100 (CET), Jaromír Mikeš said: JM> I suggesting upload zita-convolver 2.0.0-2 (with Fons's JM> suggestions) than I finish Jconvolver 0.8.4 and make some tests JM> with these flags. In the case there will be some performance JM> improvements we can release zita-convolver 2.0.0-3 than with JM> cflags for sse instructions. JM> What you think? Sounds good to me, I just uploaded it. JM> I already changed patch (and push commit) following Fons's JM> instructions and made test build here. Cool, thanks for checking this with Fons! Ciaom Free ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
