Jack2 for squeeze, was: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
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. Will this require rebuilds or other changes to packages in the archive? If yes, then we need to coordinate this upload with the release team to not disturb ongoing transitions! Moreover, I think this is an important move that should be mentioned in the release notes. Perhaps someone from our jack wizzards can word something? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ 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 siret...@tauware.de 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 instal...@ftp-master.debian.org 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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:28:42PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: Hi Reinhard, |--== On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:13:12 +0100, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de said: RT On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 23:30:56 (CET), Free Ekanayaka wrote: |--== On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:48:45 +, Archive Administrator instal...@ftp-master.debian.org 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? Free, See this thread: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2010-March/008372.html -edrz ___ 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
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? hm. it seems the message at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2010-March/008415.html is archived defectively. In that mail, I wrote this: , | From this discussion, I gather the following options: | | A) stick with jack1 | B) have jack2 in squeeze | C) have both jack1jack2 in squeeze | F) further discussion | | With such an fictional ballot, I'd vote: | | ABFC | | | If you care to comment on this issue, please participate in the vote, so | that we can assemble a report for the release team quickly. ` So far, only fabian as replied: , | Am 18.03.2010 15:35, schrieb Reinhard Tartler: | If you care to comment on this issue, please participate in the vote, so | that we can assemble a report for the release team quickly. | | I am indifferent between A and B, just because I am lacking knowledge | about jack internals. But either of both is IMHO better than | maintaining both packages, which will require a lot of new | infrastructure and redundant work and further discussion only slows | things down even more. So my vote is: | | (AB)CF | | My vote should not be decisive for the choice between jack1 and jack2. ` -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ 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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:26, Free Ekanayaka fr...@debian.org wrote: 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. I see no such thing on their webpage, nor in their mailing list (although I don't pay that much attention there). Maybe asking upstream is a good idea. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ 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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:26:01PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: Hi, Hi! 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. I completely agree with you: it has more features, it is stable, and I'm also using it instead of jackd1. If you don't fear the lack of Debian-wide testing, go ahead and upload 1.9.5 to unstable. The users would probably appreciate this. I see three open issues: * FFADO port naming needs to be redone. Upstream issue, I'll take care. * copy manpages from jackd1 package to jackd2. Anybody can do this. ;) * audio.conf handling. Right now, it cannot be tweaked by the user. Sure it can, but the package will overwrite it on updates. Though this will be fine in almost all cases (we provide a sensible default), it's clearly a policy violation. In the git repo, I have a dpkg approach, but that's inferior to ucf. If somebody with lots of conffile experience is around, feel free to implement it correctly. ;) Cheerio -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ 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
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:34:07PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: [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). This was also new to me. I never came across such a recommendation. Maybe asking upstream is a good idea. I already did, the answer was: Huu, this is a political question. Which in turn means: technically speaking, it's fine to use either of the versions. Ciao -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ 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 a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de 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
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. I guess I am guilty of complicating that issue. Let's just use a plain simple dpkg conffile. I feel that my time is better spent on other things piling up :-/ - 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/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 instal...@ftp-master.debian.org 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: jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 23:30:56 (CET), Free Ekanayaka wrote: Hi, |--== On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:48:45 +, Archive Administrator instal...@ftp-master.debian.org 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. there is currently a vote on this ongoing right now... -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 ___ 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
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:30:56PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote: 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. Why 1.9.4+something and not 1.9.5? I'd like to sort out the config file issue (dpkg vs. ucf), but we could probably upload d2c23abd119cdf7f40654fa443e2a51cf6265893, that is, before I touched the (re-)generation of audio.conf We currently only have one version of this file shipped to the user, so we're talking about one MD5 sum and a second one for our new version if we lower the rt-priority from 99 to 95. This seems a good idea to me, because there's no need for highest rt prios, they should be left to watchdogs which will kill rt processes if they hook up all cpu time. Though modern kernels never grant all cpu time to rt kernels anymore, it's just not necessary to run audio stuff at rtprio 95. jackd usually runs at 10. Cheerio -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver NTSC: Never the same colour ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Reject Reasons: Source package jack-audio-connection-kit does not have 'DM-Upload-Allowed: yes' in its most recent version (1.9.4+svn3842-2) === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
